Socialist Forum

Posted: 16 Jun 2007 03:34 am Post subject: To Each According To...

Hi Mike,

Hope you are enjoying the Sopranos. I been reading the link (I also have the PDF file) just to see what Marx was trying to convey to each according to his ability, to each... I know he is a hard read and I know that De Leon wrote that each sentence has to be studied. I also noticed, because a person has to read and re-read, that the new society is a work in progress. And that the new society emerges from Capitalist society. I have no idea how Anarchist think that Communism (if such a thing is possible) can just come into existence from the get go of a revolution.

Posted: 17 Jun 2007 03:24 pm Post subject: Re: To Each According To...

Posted: 17 Jun 2007 03:45 pm Post subject:

I would like to find the document that Marx is reviewing here. Marx wrote this "Critique of the Gotha Programme" by taking a copy of a document that was issued (in 1875?) by Ferdinand Lassalle's baby, the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) (German Social Democratic Party) and doing an apparent cut-and-paste job on it. Marx's general format was: The SPD says that -- I answer this -- the SPD says that -- I answer this. So if we can find the original, let's take a look and see if "From each ... to each ..." is one of the SPD's promises. Then we might be able to make more sense of Marx's reply to it.

Posted: 17 Jun 2007 04:04 pm Post subject: Re: To Each According To...

Posted: 17 Jun 2007 04:20 pm Post subject:

Very interesting post Mike. A lot of Commies and Anarchist believe that after the revolution, if such a thing happens, that "to each according to his ability, to each..." becomes instant reality. Forced of course through various unpleasant means.

I should have guessed that people in the 19th century would have a belief that new technology would liberate them from all labor. Anyone can still read things like that on other discussion boards. But the reality is that labor will never cease nor will education. The idea is that we have to take what we have now and change property relations. It's how we are going to organize and implement responsibility. Socialism will take work to solve problems.

Posted: 17 Jun 2007 04:34 pm Post subject:

I see no hope for eliminating the "division of labor", which is just an anthropologist's and economist's term for "specialization." Science seems to push toward more specialization. It now takes a lifetime to understand how a computer chip works. Medicine is so specialized that a doctor may make a life's work to understand the bones of the foot. The 19th century dream that the division of labor would disappear has no basis. Some of it is due to mean Mr. Scrooge forcing the worker to perform one repetitive task exclusively, but much of it is because the laws of nature are so damn complicated.

Another one is what Marx and Engels called the disappearance of the distinction between "town and country", or, in modern lingo, the clumpy urban and rural distributions of the population. In their joint book The German Ideology, a cornerstone work in their development of their economic interpretation of world history, M. and E. predict an "end" to "town and country" in close proximity to their prediction of the "end" to "the division of labor". IMO, that goal isn't even remotely desirable. First of all, it's not a "problem", because some individuals like having more trees around them, while others prefer cement and crowds, and Thoreau's writings from the 1840s show that Marx's age knew of that issue of cultural preference. Add what we now know about the environmental catastrophe that will arise from the loss of rainforests, savannas, wetlands and other biomes, and the advantages of species diversity. Marx's dream of an end to the distinction between "town and country" should go right into the trash can.

Posted: 17 Jun 2007 04:53 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 17 Jun 2007 05:02 pm Post subject:

Posted: 17 Jun 2007 05:17 pm Post subject:

Posted: 17 Jun 2007 05:37 pm Post subject:

Posted: 17 Jun 2007 08:41 pm Post subject:

John quited karl:

...only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners:

John then wrote:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! I don't know what he meant by capitalist right be crossed in its entirety nor do I understand the banner. From each...could mean a lot of things. No one has the same ability or needs and what of those who have no ability but have a lot of needs? I can see why Dave would write that the Socialist Industrial Union is logical because it is based on existing reality.

dave replies:

Karl asked me to answer this for him.

Remember Dr. Karl was a 19th century writer. Almost exactly a contemporary of Herman Melville. Even though one ids fiction the other not - still there is a certain style of that time period. And English lit teacher could probably go on for hours about it - So don't try to read him as a contemporary either as to subject or as to style. Dr. Karl certainly must have ridden on a train but he never saw an aeroplane. The telegraph was the electronic marvel of the age. The transatlantic cable telegraph cable being completed in 1866 when Marx was 48. I believe. So with those two, time and style in mind take another look. ALSO part of that style, I believe (and DeLeon and not a few carried this style forward into the 20th century was the OVERUSE OF THE GOD DAMNED, not even being consistent in their use. Look at poor Dr. Karl's use of the horizon metaphor:

only then then can the narrow horizon ...be crossed in its entirety

Perhaps it's an English/German conversion issue but have you ever heard of someone's goal being to cross the horizon - perhaps travel beyond it. And why would crossing a narrow horizon be ant different than cross a broad horizon?

AND THEN ONCE WE CROSS THE FUCKING HORIOZON WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE TO DO?? WHY OF COURSE, INSCRIBE SOMETHING ON OUR FUCKING BANNER!!!

see the problem here John.

And then of course you have to realize that Dr. Karl was a highly highly read individual. Dr. karl wasn't referring to Blanc about from each to each but to the Books of Acts. The bible was widely read if only for lack of other reading material in the 19th century and there is no doubt, in my little bran anyway that the usage of from each to each was part of the common idiom. Its use in the 19th cent. certainly was not due to Blanc.

So (I am guessing) that he would not have meant the prescription exactly but as a general reference - essentially saying when we can produce what we need no one will want.

Or as in the old saying:

"If turnips were watches, I'd wear one by my side.
"If wishes were horses, beggars could ride,
"If 'ifs' and 'ands' were pots and pans,
"There would be no work for tinkers."

So take it in a general way, DO NOT break it down (metaphor alert) looking for some secret insight into the socialist future.

I do believe that if Dr. Karl came back and saw how people search and search through this trying to find some hidden meaning that only he alone could come up with, that he would kick the fucking shit right out of them for trying to find truth in an idea instead of reality.

So that is why I have given up trying:-)

dave

Posted: 17 Jun 2007 09:04 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 18 Jun 2007 02:15 am Post subject:

What to do with deleon? Everytime you read him and come to a metaphor run over to the window, upen it up and screem outside, you stupid old fart, couldn't you ever writie anything without a fucking metaphor in it??!! You will then feel much much better, or it least it will make ne feel better knowing at alt least someone besides me is doing it.

Also, think about this little truism: History is made in the present.

I notice that I really screwed up on the editing of my last post so I am rewriting my answer part and posting it below:

++++++++++++
dave replies:

Karl asked me to answer this for him.

Remember Dr. Karl was a 19th century writer. Almost exactly a contemporary of Herman Melville. Even though one wrote fiction the other not - still there is a certain style of that time period. An English lit teacher could probably go on for hours about it - So don't try to read him as a contemporary either as to subject or as to style. Dr. Karl certainly must have ridden on a train but he never saw an aeroplane. The telegraph was the electronic marvel of the age. The transatlantic cable telegraph cable being completed in 1866 when Marx was 48. I believe. So with those two, time and style in mind, take another look. ALSO part of that style, I believe (and DeLeon and not a few others carried this style forward into the 20th century was the OVERUSE OF THE GOD DAMNED METAPHOR, not even being consistent in their use. Look at poor Dr. Karl's use of the horizon metaphor:

only then then can the narrow horizon ...be crossed in its entirety

Perhaps it's an English/German conversion issue but have you ever heard of someone's goal being to cross the horizon - perhaps travel beyond it but not cross it. And why would crossing a narrow horizon be any different than crossing a broad horizon?

AND THEN ONCE WE CROSS THE FUCKING HORIOZON WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE TO DO?? WHY OF COURSE, INSCRIBE SOMETHING ON OUR FUCKING BANNER!!!

makes sense right?

see the problem here John.

And then of course you have to realize that Dr. Karl was a highly highly read individual. Dr. karl wasn't referring to Blanc about "from each" "to each" but to the Books of Acts. The bible was widely read if only for lack of other reading material in the 19th century and there is no doubt, in my little bran anyway that the usage of from each to each was part of the common idiom. Its use in the 19th cent. certainly was not due to Blanc.

So (I am guessing) that he would not have meant the prescription exactly but as a general reference - essentially saying when we can produce what we need no one will want.

Or as in the old saying:

"If turnips were watches, I'd wear one by my side.
"If wishes were horses, beggars could ride,
"If 'ifs' and 'ands' were pots and pans,
"There would be no work for tinkers."

So take it in a general way, DO NOT break it down (metaphor alert) looking for some secret insight into the socialist future.

I do believe that if Dr. Karl came back and saw how people search and search through this trying to find some hidden meaning that only he alone could come up with, that he would kick the fucking shit right out of them for trying to find truth in an idea instead of reality.

So that is why I have given up trying:-)

dave

Posted: 18 Jun 2007 08:49 am Post subject:

Dave, I'm grateful to you because a couple years ago you helped me to realize the problem with the metaphors and analogies. Before I received your influence, I probably liked the parable of the poodle at the beauty parlor.

However, there is a difference between a metaphor intended as an argument and proof and a metaphor intended as an illustrative figure of speech. I think the difference has to do with whether the analogous relationship is intended as the point. It was alleged as an intended point that reform is similar to the poodle at the beauty parlor. I would avoid that kind. As an intended proof, it fails. However, I don't see a problem with the phrase "cross the horizon". First of all, there actually is a relationship between the passage of time (seeing something new after the time coordinate has changed) and crossing a horizon (seeing something new after the change in the time coordinate has been accompanied by a change in the space coordinate). Secondly, the point of the text isn't to promote the theory that the passage of time is similar to crossing a horizon; it's only a figure of speech; so the phrase dosn't merit defense from some and attack from others. Likewise my use of the word "point" -- notice that the message that there's a similarity between the point of an argument and the point of a sharp object wasn't my intended point! That makes it illustrative and not intended as a proof, therefore it is superfluous to observe that the word "point" fails to prove something -- it wasn't supposed to. That socialism will solve "the problems that have come floating down the streams of time" (De Leon in _Anti-Semitism_) wasn't intended to persuade people to believe that time is like a current of water, therefore this phrase is illustrative. However, "If you have an economic organization alone, you have a duck flying with one wing" (De Leon in _Reform or Rev_) was actually asking people to consider the needs of a body in stable flight to help determine how many organizational fields the working class requires. That's not merely illustrative; it was intended as a proof.

So half of your analogy alerts are very helpful, and the other half of them are unnecessary. We need to ask, for any one of these analogies, was the proof of the validity of the analogous relationship the intended point?

Posted: 18 Jun 2007 09:00 am Post subject:

Why do you say Marx was responding to the biblical passage itself rather than responding to one of the utopian socialist applications?

Posted: 18 Jun 2007 09:04 am Post subject:

I will keep in mind that Marx was a 19th century writer. I was not trying to look for a secret insight into a socialist future with this particular reading. A lot of Commies try to do that. You can go to a Leninist website and they proudly proclaim that Lenin carried on the work of Marx. Rolling Eyes

But that is a completely different subject.

What I learn is that "to each...to each" has no basis in reality much in the same way those in Acts who sold everything so that everyone would have all in common and put in practice commonism. Our reality is what exist and how to use them.

Posted: 18 Jun 2007 10:25 am Post subject:

"to each...to each" has no basis in reality

Just a slight adjustment I would add to this. If it has any basis at all it is the basis that reality supplies it.

dave

Posted: 25 Jun 2007 01:39 pm Post subject:

In other words, each...to each depends upon how the future society develops and that it could fall short of communism which "to each...to each" is based on. It sure won't happen the day after "Democracy Day".
I come to like that term because it sounds a whole lot better. I hope it comes peacefully.

I just finished The Common Sense of Socialism. It was a good read and close to the end of the book the author talked about how Socialism would remove artificial in-equalities. However, inequality would continue to exist since nature does not produce in equality. People are also not equal. Some are stronger, some faster, some with physical limitations, others who are more intellectual, some good in mathematics, others good in English prose, some wise, some foolish. Work is also not equal, some types of work require simply using the mind, there is physical demands with some forms of labor, some work is dangerous, others require technological know how, etc.

All of these in-equalities of the laborer and labor itself has to be measured. I guess that is why Mike thought out the TLV to create a balance between the laborer and the labor he/she would be involved in. Why would some think the TLV is just another form of wage slavery akin to the existing system?

Posted: 25 Jun 2007 05:03 pm Post subject:

John wrote:

All of these in-equalities of the laborer and labor itself has to be measured.

dave writes:

whatever for?

It's nit even done that much under capitalism. Does the worker seem to be fitted for the job. good enough. if not then put the worker in a job better suited, or modify the current job.

John wrote:

Why would some think the TLV is just another form of wage slavery akin to the existing system?

dave writes becuase it looks alike - you do work you get something for the work.

Posted: 25 Jun 2007 07:47 pm Post subject:

I think the only way unequal skills should be rewarded is by compensating for the learning time. If I spend a thousand hours studying mathematics, pay me for the thousand hours. Then, if knowing that advanced mathematics makes me a better maker of robot sprokets, society doesn't have to compensate me any more than the other makers of robot sprockets. It already did, by paying me while I was learning.

Posted: 25 Jun 2007 10:36 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 30 Jul 2007 02:13 am Post subject: JOBS THAT ARE STRENUOUS OR DANGEROUS

Posted: 30 Jul 2007 05:56 am Post subject:

Hi, Vince - What you said seems to be the preference of Robin Hahnel and Michael Albert, the developers of the Participatory Economics (Parecon) movement. I heard Albert use one example of a slight loss in productivity when surgeons have to empty their own trash can being more than offset by a gain in productivity from not having a permanent group of people with jobs that don't exercise their imagination. However, it had to be noted that this method does away with everyone having a complete choice of jobs. It makes sense to me for the people who have no fear of heights to choose to work on the roof, etc. Besides, I don't see how your suggestion would remove the need for pay, although it might remove the need for public arguments related to the inequality of pay.

Posted: 30 Jul 2007 02:39 pm Post subject:

To speak of (in)equality requires a way to estimate it. Suppose you select a job that has some inconveniences associates with it, say, your heavy firefighter's coat really can't be made comfortable, your boots are going to hurt no matter what, where you're going smells bad, not to mention the hazards of the job. And suppose I choose a job in an air-conditioned office, soft chair, music in the background. In that case, a possible stimate might be that one hour of work for you is the same degree of personal sacrifice as three hours of work for me. If that's the estimated ratio in personal sacrifice per unit time, three to one, that would say that paying you three times the hourly income that I get is, not inequality, but equality.

Posted: 30 Jul 2007 02:59 pm Post subject:

I have thought before about this issue of public arguments. Imagine, to the firefighter, the labor of a firefighter is four times the sacrifice level of the labor of the cushy office workers. The office worker admits to a disparity in sacrifice level but admits only to a ratio of two. When society adopts a ratio of three, it might have been, ideally, that both individuals could see it as a compromise, but, with the grass always being greener on the other side of the fence, it could also be that both individuals are unhappy with the ourcome. I said four and got three. I said two and got three. Both of us yell "unfair." How to classify this problem?

I see it as an exercise in the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill, the formula that the good is whatever is consistent with the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. We have to make half the people complain "too much" and the other half of the people complain "too little", because that's the only outcome that has the moderation to avoid some people complaining "way,way too much" or some people ocmplaining "way, way too little." So what is hapiness? That's when everyone is disappointed by not getting their own way, but in a form that minimizes the general magnitude of this disappointment as it is socially distributed.

And isn't this problem found in democracy itself? Let's look at a hypothetical case of voting. One-third of the people say "build a brick school", one-third of the people say "build a wooden school", and one-third say "don't build any school". One of these propositions will win out somehow, leaving one-third of the people satisfied, and two-thirds of the people going away disapppointed because they didn't get their own way. So here is a practical solution. The brick school party and the wooden school party combine their efforts into a "build-a-school coalition." This coalition wins by a vote of 66 pecent. Now that it's established that we're going to get a new school, we don't revisit the issue of whether or not we should build one, but we take a second vote to choose between brick and wood. What has my hypothetical situation illustrated? We have found a way to make a majority of the people disappointed a little bit, unavoidabe in any case, while systematically approaching the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people.

Posted: 30 Jul 2007 03:17 pm Post subject:

Where I really find myself at loggerheads with the Free Access school of socialism (worldsocialism.org) is around the issue of incentive. I believe that incentive must always be a personal sensation. Not so at sporadic moments, and we have our heroes, but in the steady state, in what human life must be typically, incentive must always be internal to each individual. We will be altruistic in an emergency. We will jump into the frozen sea to rescue a drowning baby. But routine production doesn't elicit emergency behavior. Society can never operate on the basis of people volunteering without pay to do routine jobs merely because everyone knows intellectually that the jobs need to be done. Under such a system the proportions of human effort would be out of whack. We would have too many volunteers to play the guitar and not enough volunteers to clean the septic tank.

So I take the basic concept of paying workers by the hour to work as the universal bookkeeping device, like bytes in a computer, and accept that as the locus for the fix for every allocation problem. The right numbers have to be determined. Any kind of misallocation of labor or wealth tells us that we still have to jostle the formulas and algorithms this way or that way, finding ever-improving numbers.

Posted: 30 Jul 2007 03:23 pm Post subject:

You're right, my suggestion is clumsy. But I'm seeing a clumsy idea that has stability built into it, versus an elegant-sounding idea that I believe can't reach equilibrium.

Posted: 19 Aug 2007 04:32 pm Post subject: IMPORTANT MATERIAL

Mike,

Your two last long posts above require study and I will do so when I can. I intend to get back to them.

vince, PCS

Posted: 20 Aug 2007 09:54 am Post subject:

The studies I have been doing on the Soviet Union gave a somewhat small answer to what was done on Collective Farms. They did not function very well for starters. The people were overworked and often received harsh discipline from Party officials. Some were sent off to prison for passive resistance to the vanguard overlords. On the other hand, when a certain group of peasants were allowed to receive a profit, then their farms did a whole lot better when it came to growing crops or livestock. Every time I see someone, who is Marxist-Leninist, write that the first order of business would be to create Collective Farms when they take over; however, Capitalist have already done that with agricultural businesses. They work better than the Collective Farm because they make a profit. Unfortunately, in the drive to make profits put the quality of food stuffs in question. People who are tied to the land are not compensated all that much for their toil. We see that all too often with migrant workers.

Okay then, when we talk about the SIU we know that there would be a agriculture department. I understand that labor would be calibrated according to stress and physical endurance to receive their labor voucher. However, other factors has to be considered in farming. Enough rainfall, the amount of fertilizer put into the soil and the environmental impact that could have on drinking water and human and domestic animal consumption, storms that destroy crops, etc. When we talked about land in another thread we found ourselves a bit lost over what should be done. Agri-businesses ruined the family farm here in the U.S. as Collective Farming did the same thing to the peasant farms in the former Soviet Union except that there was an exchange of landowners to extract produce and livestock. Considering what I have read I believe that Socialism should retain the family farm as part of the Socialist Industrial Union. I think this may improve quality of grain and livestock. Perhaps there could be some satisfaction to those who work the soil or raise live stock.

Posted: 21 Aug 2007 04:51 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

I don't see a problem with the phrase "cross the horizon".

dave writes:

nor do I, in and of itself - just as I see no problem with the tiniest toot of coke in and of itself. see how these metaphors get in? arrrhhhggg they are invading everywhere!!! taking over my body.

Posted: 21 Aug 2007 05:01 pm Post subject:

Me thinks that we will be much happoer as a nation to commit to keeping small farms. Whether family run ourt right or as a part time co-ops. Family farms are wonderful but tough at the same time. We just lost a teen age boy up here to a haying machine that he was working on the family farm. Those fuckers are un-forgiving.

Under the current set up the farmer very seldom is a long term beneficiary of productiviuty increases. What else is new for the common joe and jane.

Posted: 21 Aug 2007 09:16 pm Post subject:

I don't see much use for the family farm as a unit of industry. It's probably better for the family to have a quarter acre of beans just because it's fun, while at the same time society grows a 1,000 acre field of beans operated by large robotic equipment because its efficient. The large and automated machine doesn't contribute much to the fun, other than generate leisure time which people can fill with the fun of their choice. Conversely, the family's small-scale operation doesn't contribibute much to society's total inventory of products.

Posted: 23 Aug 2007 01:58 am Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 23 Aug 2007 03:15 pm Post subject:

As long as things are called what they are, and incompatible claims don't get made. A small farm can't be a family's private propery while we simultaneously claim it's democratically controlled by or responsible to the people. It's one or the other.

I also think it will turn out to be a big planning mess to figure out how how the family farmer is supposed to buy livestock and mechanized equipment and yet we don't call the whole economic system capitalism. If society contributes the resources so the family doesn't have to buy them, then society will be the boss of how the resources get used. If the farm is private property, then society won't hand the person the supplies.

How to have any connection between a family owned farm and the SIU, I really can't visualize it. If farming is a hobby, that I can visualize. While I work for and buy the toys of my choice, but my neighbor works for and buys a combine.

I agree about the benefits of ecologically sustainable (commonly called organic) methods, but I don't know that the farm's size or administrative method is connected with that.

Posted: 23 Aug 2007 06:29 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 24 Aug 2007 05:06 pm Post subject:

Posted: 24 Aug 2007 07:55 pm Post subject:

I understand but how can anything be sold twice when the LTV does not circulate? The family farm is not that big but I have to agree that the family can only have one acre while the productive land being held in common as the means of production. However, the family farm does have equipment and that should be retained by the farmer. The SIU can repair and replace parts on the equipment. The Farmer would be paid for his ongoing work in agriculture until when those amazing robots can sow, harvest and wash second story windows of the farm house.

I did purposely write what I did. History has shown that those who worked the soil were often slaves. In Russia the peasants were actual slaves of the landowners. When the Soviet Union took over the peasants were still ill treated and Lenin had actual contempt for them. We have to make sure the SIU has workers and farmers on equal footing. Okay, I'm done. Wink

Posted: 31 Aug 2007 06:31 pm Post subject:

Sorry for not answering this sooner.

I think that I had written scenarios that LTVs could "circulate". There is no used trying to prevent them from circulating when they are going to circulate anyway. I suppose a 5% tax could be put on the process that each time it is transferred 5% would be knocked off of the value. Perhaps a tax on accumulation or ago of held vouchers. I don't give a shit about the purity of the matter. I can see where the circulation may lead to not so hot situations and either the SIU outright or the congress could choose to control it.

Also, it does not seem that it is capitalism per se that concerns us but exploitation of labor. If people want to exploit their own labor and create positive results, such as putting food on people's tables - that is a wonderful thing and ought to be encouraged, even materially such as through very low cost farm equipment sufficient to do the work to the extent that it is found to be beneficial. Again either the SIU itself or congress can control it as makes sense. ISTM

Posted: 03 Sep 2007 01:18 pm Post subject:

I remember the scenarios you had written about the possibility of LTVs circulating and suggested to continue the use of money. If people want SIUs and a Socialist society then those thought and behaviors have to be mainstream. They cannot be forced on society through ridicule and terror. Money in and of itself is not "evil." It can be used to feed people or kill them.

Posted: 03 Sep 2007 02:06 pm Post subject:

John wrote:

I remember the scenarios you had written about the possibility of LTVs circulating and suggested to continue the use of money.

dave writes:

If it's a matter of calling labor time vouchers money - that's fine but it has to be the SIU which issue vouchers for access to the products of industrial labor. Since those vouchers would have value (both use and what has been referred to as exchange value) and that the SIU would be be loath to issue more than work actually performed - it would seem that they would be a perfect candidate for use as legal tender under Socialism.

What we have today is fiat money, which is fine as long as people will take it. I don't see how under a system where industrial labor has it's own exchange system backed by real products that people want, why anyone would accept fiat money from the political state. And I expect that the political govt's themselves will want to accept labor vouchers instead of fiat money - so perhaps the Federal Reserve notes will loose their designation as the legal tender.

dave

Posted: 03 Sep 2007 05:17 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 04 Sep 2007 10:18 pm Post subject:

John I don't know if I totally understood. But maybe this will help a bit. the term "legal tender".

DeLeon talks about this in one of his editorials or speeches. If I have a store in Vermont and you come and to buy something - you pull out your wad of federal reserve notes to pay for some item. Even though those notes are "legal tender" in the US I don't have to accept them. I can say that I only take Canadian money for example.

But, if you owe me money and the contract or judgment says that you owe me $100 U.S. currency, then the tender of federal reserve notes satisfies your obligation.

If you owe taxes, the tender of federal reserve notes must be accepted.

But federal reserve notes aren't backed by anything except the expectation that some one else will accept them from you when you take them from someone else.

Suppose the workers say from Oct 1 on as part of our control of the industries, except for items (and in the number of these items) that the workers decide to distribute freely the workers say, everything else is going to be distributed from the social store via labor vouchers.

I would assume that your local town and even the state and federal government would rather receive their taxes in labor vouchers rather than in federal reserve notes. So the fed might simply acquiesce and declare labor vouchers to be legal tender. Not really much of a difference logistically.

As to the objection of "purists", they are not worth bothering with. IMHO They are going to object no matter how clearly it is explained to them.

But if you choose to set up a "capitalist" shop selling apple pies or giving hair cuts in exchange for labor vouchers or growing Brussel sprouts, fine. And in some instances such as farming society ought to bend over like hell to subsidise that as much as possible as long as the product is actually needed.

Posted: 06 Sep 2007 12:44 am Post subject:

You pretty much understood where I was coming from. It just up to people in the new society to either do the money thing or labor vouchers. It just dawned on me that society, as a whole, would have to voluntarily do away with the profit motive. So, what is produced is exchanged by whatever legal tender that is decided upon. Is the struggle with the capitalist or actually with our neighbors, friends and families?

John T.

Posted: 06 Sep 2007 08:25 pm Post subject:

Well there is profit and there is profit. If you acquired a skill for cutting people's hair so that they all looked sexually irresistible you could set up shop and take sell your services for 3 4 and 5 times the going rate, let's assume one hour's barbering for 5 labor hour vouchers. No one would deny that you were making a profit. Now it may be that congress or the state was concerned about "unearned" acquisition of labor vouchers. I suppose they could tax it in some way, but it would be a democratic process and if the state tried too hard it would run the risk of creating a black market economy, such as happens with taxation of cigarettes by states. People just get them from other states if the difference becomes too high. But as far as basic principle goes, I do not think that it is "profits" in and of themselves that concern us. Its the exploitation of labor power through the wages system, the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands and the rapidly declining value of labor power creating increasing poverty amongst the working class and keeping living conditions around the world low.

Posted: 11 Sep 2007 06:56 pm Post subject:

I guess I been thinking along those lines. The exploitation of labor power is done by people who are called capitalist. Your description is great about exploitation through wages. However, if society uses money or labor vouchers, the mutual agreement of social norms being the social contract of obligations, that individuals/groups/society as a whole don't exploit anyone's labor power. As you wrote, if a person charges five labor vouchers above the norms and being "in demand" then it not so much a violation of making a profit. That person's labor power was in demand by people who want his/hers service and were willing to give those vouchers/money to him/her. What was made was an agreement of services for such and such amount. If I am off let me know and educate me. Very Happy

John

Posted: 12 Sep 2007 01:57 am Post subject:

If people want a system that provides for private profit, they can have whatever kind of system they want, of course. The difference between us here is that you guys seem to expect that it's likely that people in a socialist world would want to participate in private exchanges that make profits. I just think that virtually no one would want to. I think business activity will seem like retro-pretend behavior, like the people today who have medieval knight festivals.

Also --- and this makes me very sad, boo-hoo --- no one ever pays any attention to my assertion that forced exploitation is not the only thing that makes capitalism bad. I believe that businesses being separate financial units, with income and outgo that needs to be balanced, makes businesses behave in anti-social ways. Businesses tend to become reckless so they can increase their income and decrease their outgo. Getting rid of the exploitation of labor wouldn't change that.

Posted: 12 Sep 2007 10:10 am Post subject:

I was trying to see what the social mores would be under socialism. From our present perspective we see exploitation of labor power which makes a profit for the capitalist class. Interesting that you mentioned that businesses are separate financial units. I believe you pointing out the bottom line of more money in and less products out. The normal worker has no concept other than they work for a wage, the company has to make a profit or else I am out of a job and the owners have a right to demand more since they are just that, owners.

Now I have to ask this: Would educating people about wage exploitation and laying out the plan for socialism be enough? Or would social morals have to be developed in the creation of societal mores?

John

Posted: 12 Sep 2007 06:43 pm Post subject:

When a business is a separate economic unit, the owner is under a lot of pressure too. The owner gets punished for doing the right thing. The business that neglects safety conditions, conceals quality problems, tells lies in the advertising, etc., becomes a stronger competitor for doing those things, and the honest and kind business owner is disadvantaged. And guess what -- if a socialist (if you choose to call it socialist) economic system that makes provisions for some amount of private business, like Aunt Tillie's bed'n'breakfast that we were talking about a couple months ago ... it would still be true there also. A greedy owner would be economically rewarded for bad behavior, while economic penalties would get tacked on in direct proportion to any niceness.

Posted: 12 Sep 2007 06:54 pm Post subject:

Posted: 12 Sep 2007 10:13 pm Post subject:

Anger and depression? Perhaps you should refrain from the vomit they spew over on revleft. A lot of it is outdated 19th century concepts that they think will still work though we have seen, first hand, that it failed miserably. I think they exist to ensure that capitalism continues to exist. Nobody really wants to be a Communist and the same feeling could be said about those Anarchist. They are a turn off and they spook me as well. They hate anything that may appear as bourgeoisie which includes civil rights and liberties. I won't call them comrade and I refuse to be called comrade. Piss on them.

Posted: 13 Sep 2007 02:04 am Post subject:

Posted: 13 Sep 2007 07:38 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Also --- and this makes me very sad, boo-hoo --- no one ever pays any attention to my assertion that forced exploitation is not the only thing that makes capitalism bad. I believe that businesses being separate financial units, with income and outgo that needs to be balanced, makes businesses behave in anti-social ways. Businesses tend to become reckless so they can increase their income and decrease their outgo. Getting rid of the exploitation of labor wouldn't change that.

Dave writes:

So we'll make it illegal for grandma to bake apple pies and exhange them with the person who wants to give her however many labor vouchers they want for one? Why? because grandma might corner the market on pyrex pie pans?

You know that people will knock down the walls to get at grandma's pies and are gong to give every last LTV that they can get their hands on for just one slice - so why would you want to CREATE a black market scenerio? Let grandma have her big chance (even though we know that she laces the uper crust with hash).

Posted: 13 Sep 2007 07:50 pm Post subject:

Mike writes:

That's probably why we keep getting back to speculating about the role of farmers. The operation has some of the qualities of mass industry and some of the qualities of a small business. But to call it a family business, that makes me very skeptical.

Dave writes:

Skepticize away. The family farm just as the balot on election day are part of the American structure. If we can institute socialism pror to the extinction of the family farm we will be damned lucky indeed.

Posted: 13 Sep 2007 08:59 pm Post subject:

I don't care what Grandma does as long as her access to land, tools, raw materials, energy is the same as the access that everyone else has. In Grandma's case, anyone could acquire the things that she needs. If you modify the example so the individual needs one of those large automations that fills and lids jars and send them down the conveyor belt, that would be a tool that not everyone has access to, and then you would have a problem. Same for the farmer. The farmer can have a thresher if everyone could acquire a thresher.

It's up to socialists who want to accommodate family farms to solve the land distribution problems. We have already discussed some of the problems. If the farmer in Nebraska has ten acres, can each resident in Manhattan also have ten acres? I think I'll plant my acreage at the corner of Broadway and 42nd Street. Do you use some kind of lottery drawing to determine who gets the land? I have enough of a problem of my own in that I would like to accommodate residential land use and I can't think of any fair way to resolve the land distribution dilemmas. To accommodate private farming on top of that, the dilemma get many times worse.

Posted: 13 Sep 2007 09:16 pm Post subject:

I don't know if this has any relevance but during the days of collectivization the Kulaks grew vegetables and grain and got rich doing so which led to their murders. I would guess that the produce they grew was more superior than the factory farm of the Communist. Why is that so?

Dave has made an important observation. Grandma can make an apple pie far better than what goes down an assembly line and some people would highly prefer her homemade touch. There has to be a democratic way to allow for those small enterprises to exist in society otherwise it will exist in a black market. It easy to identify the problems of capitalism but has anyone ever thought that socialism is going to have a lot more problems to contend with. Those assholes on Revleft think the answer is to commit murder. Piss on them.

John (don't call me comrade) Trimbath

Posted: 13 Sep 2007 11:45 pm Post subject:

Why are we thinking up rules for how future society must or must not solve problems?

Give use of 160 acres to family farmers who have demonstrated generation after generation that they know what to do with it in order to put food on people's tables. Give them use of the land. Allow them use of tractors, etc. even if it's free, to do the same? Do it.

I'd rather that we discuss how we improve socialism over a full dinner table anytime.

Posted: 14 Sep 2007 07:54 am Post subject:

We agree about Grandma's kitchen. We always talked about a better way to administer the big stuff - the mines, mills, factories, railroads. No one here ever entertained the idea that a baking pan was part of it.

The idea to program the system so people can cash out their labor vouchers from the computer and then exchange them in any way, up until a year or so ago I would have been closed minded to the idea, but now I think it's the best suggestion.

Posted: 14 Sep 2007 08:03 am Post subject:

Posted: 14 Sep 2007 07:31 pm Post subject:

Generally people think of Socialism as a government dictating how people are to live. And in the Soviet Union it did. Socialism has to be more than a spec sheet or a detailed analysis of how industries function. It looks more like an automated ant hill. Socialism lacks any sort of cultural identification that the common person would know first hand. It is as dead as an inanimate object and relies on scientific dialectical guess work which is non coherent to the majority of people. The things that exist now Marx wrote would not exist under Socialism. Ha! He had no concept of what drives the individual. He was right that we are all different but he had no idea that people react differently to the same situation. That is what makes us human because we think and not rely on instinct.

Socialism has to become a living entity. It has to have culture. Culture contains many different element in it and under Socialism it would be similar but different from capitalism. For Socialist Culture to develop it has got to have a period of gestation and a birth time, it grows and comes to maturity, a down going and a death. It will exist only once and it is possible revolution won't bring it about but, rather, a reconstruction. . Now do you understand why Aunt Tillie would have people buying her apple pies, why people would buy produce, eggs and meat from a local farmer. The Amish culture exist and can anyone tell me why a bunch of people would live like its 1799?

John

Posted: 15 Sep 2007 08:14 am Post subject:

I'm sure that's right -- the many different elements of culture. I suppose things will probably be very different from anything people earlier imagined.

But I'm a little skeptical of the phrase "government dictating to people how to live." If I think there's a certain way to do things that would be best, and I cast my one vote toward it, then it won't pass anyway if most people dislike the idea.

Posted: 15 Sep 2007 12:09 pm Post subject:

John wrote:

The things that exist now Marx wrote would not exist under Socialism.

Dave writes:

John, when people state what Marx said my long standing practice is to always ask for a quote.

Posted: 15 Sep 2007 12:46 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 15 Sep 2007 02:11 pm Post subject:

John: I think it is safe to say, not that which exits under capitalism will not exist under socialism - but that Nothing that exists today will be the same tomorrow, come socialism or capitalism staying. Even the capitalism of tomorrow won't be the capitalism of today.

The influence of the change will always developing material conditions.

And the question becomes what is our relationship to the changing conditions going to be.

Posted: 15 Sep 2007 07:24 pm Post subject:

Speaking of material conditions. Is life conditions the same thing? Do people determine what their conditions would be...or they something that exist beyond their control? The present is always in a state of change and tomorrow is different than yesterday. Each place has a different set of circumstances and conditions and whatever happens becomes internalized differently for each individual but become social in character. If I sound like I don't make sense just let me know. Material conditions vary from one place to another in which each individual transform them into their own life conditions whether they are positive or negative, good or bad. I believe it is a mistake to think that material conditions alone would have everyone rally to the Left or to the Right. The Commie think that if material conditions were bad enough that people would rally to them. How many time has conditions been bad but the expected results never materialized but a totally different result occurred. I think life conditions, being the result of local material conditions, are carried over to the social realm where they become the new material condition. Perhaps there is a cycle of different possibilities.

Is this a true statement?

Posted: 15 Sep 2007 10:27 pm Post subject:

If you could break it down some I think I could explain it.

First an observation: I think that this is marx's analogy for material conditions affecting the course of history . The course of history was likened to a river. The course of a river is ULTIMATELY determined by gravity pulling down on the water making the river flow from higher ground to lower. Matrial conditions affredct the course of history like garvity affects the course of a river. Other conditions interverve to influence a river to turn to the right or left, or to fill up a depression until it finds an outlet .. anyway you can follow it from here. Got to go. But break it down if you can.

Posted: 15 Sep 2007 11:40 pm Post subject:

I was figuring that there was more to just plain "material conditions" as water going down hill to form creeks, rivers, lakes, to finally end up in the ocean. I was wondering if was more than just "economics." Does religious beliefs, arts, sciences, etc., play a role as part of the human experience? I have read somewhere that Marx understood neither socialism nor capitalism as ethical world outlooks. His understanding of both was purely economic, and thus a misunderstanding. The ethical and social foundation of Marxism is capitalistic. Don't you think we are in competition with the capitalist who have cornered all the wealth and we of the lower classes are invited to take that wealth from them according to Marx? Confused

Posted: 16 Sep 2007 07:45 am Post subject:

Usually when marxists say "material conditions" they refer to "the means and the mode of production." The means are the state of development of the tools. Hunting, fishing and gathering fruits are a kind of the means. Agriculture is one. Machinery is one. The second material layer is the mode (also called relations) of production. That's what tribalism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism and socialism are. On top of those two layers of material conditions is the superstructure, which is everything having to do with thinking. Family systems, law, religion, philosophy and arts are some of the important things in the superstructure. Certain kinds of superstructure grow in certain material conditions.

No, Marx didn't say that all of it was economic. Engels wrote that he and Marx exaggerated the economic in order to counteract the tendency in their day of people to claim that none of it was economic, the claim that any thoughts can appear at any time.

Posted: 16 Sep 2007 08:11 am Post subject:

Posted: 16 Sep 2007 11:52 am Post subject:

John wrote:

I was figuring that there was more to just plain "material conditions" as water going down hill to form creeks, rivers, lakes, to finally end up in the ocean. I was wondering if was more than just "economics." Does religious beliefs, arts, sciences, etc., play a role as part of the human experience?

Dave writes - yest that's the 2nd part of the analogy - other conditions intervene to make the river turn right or left: People with various faiths, people with no faith, pig headed individuals, weak headed individuals, people with foresight, people with none. All these can make the river turn right or left, but the river will always end up going from high ground to low. When that process ceases it is no longer a river.

It doesn't matter how religious or politically astute people are - material conditions can wipe them out. Societies always have t organize in such a way in order to acquire the material necessities of life or the society will break apart and the divisions that are able to so organize will continue.

There is nothing really deep about it. Marx didn't invent this. people think that it is impersonal - it's not, it's just a recognition that we are flesh and blood and that there are material necessities that allow us to live and that we have to as individuals and as groups take actions to be able to obtain and partake of those necessities.

Here is Engels on this:
%%%%%%%%%%
The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch. The growing perception that existing social institutions are unreasonable and unjust, that reason has become unreason, and right wrong [1], is only proof that in the modes of production and exchange changes have silently taken place with which the social order, adapted to earlier economic conditions, is no longer in keeping.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

%%%%%%%%%%

But this "conception of history" is just that, a conception of history. For those of us who are not afraid of thoughts or worship thoughts either, we can think other things as well. if for example a person thinks that the American Revolution was some great application of ideals handed down from the almighty. Well I guess that;s one way of looking at it. My point is that the materialist conception of history is not a fundamental point of our religion becuase we don't have one.

over at the SPGB the MCOH is their "reason" for keeping people out of the organization who posess any religious belief. When that happens it becomes obvious pretty quickly that what in fact is happening is that they hold their own ideas as religious beliefs.

Posted: 19 Sep 2007 01:31 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 20 Sep 2007 07:36 am Post subject:

John quoted dave:

When that process ceases it is no longer a river.

John asked:

End of Western Civilization?

dave comments:

or the beginning of it.

Posted: 21 Sep 2007 01:55 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 21 Sep 2007 04:07 pm Post subject:

Individuals are different, but I think the effect of material conditions is that, in certain historical periods, people don't even think of certain ideas, or if some people do think of them, they get ignored. It might have happened, say, in the year 1400, that someone could have said that there shouldn't be a monarch but a republic instead, but that person would be presumed by others to be crazy or possessed by the devil, and nothing would seem to come out of the suggestion. But for some reason that same suggestion, when expressed in the 1700s, "caught on." It's often said that the time is ripe for certain ideas. If Marx and Engels were right, it's the changing material conditions that make the difference. For some reason, the suggestion to replace the monarchy by a republic seems to the human mind to make more sense after we have the steam powered loom, ship navigation by the sextant, some knowledge of chemistry, understanding of blood circulation, etc. Know something about positive and negative electric charge, and, for some reason, it begins to seem stupid to have a country ruled by a king. I don't think the science of the human brain is advanced enough yet to explain exactly why that happens, but it apparently happens. Invent new tools and for some reason people start to think differently about seemingly unrelated subjects.

Posted: 21 Sep 2007 05:58 pm Post subject:

Perhaps that is true that an invention would bring people to think of making changes from monarch to Republic. The computer has been around for a long while but I haven't heard anything about social control over the means of production. In fact, Gates and Trump are looked upon fondly rather than being political enemies of the public. If an invention of a replicator was invented then perhaps collective ownership might get debated. Who knows but I still think that environmental factors of climate and what grows may play an important part along with the tools including ethnic and cultural differences.

Posted: 21 Sep 2007 09:23 pm Post subject:

Social control over the means of production is the most banned subject in the mass media. A person could go a lifetime without ever hearing it mentioned. No only social control, but the whole idea that some other ways to live are even possible. . The mere question: could there possibly be some other political or economic system that might work better than the one that we have now? The entire topic is strictly forbidden. In my whole life I have never seen even a brief discussion of it in any broadcast or print medium, except for partisan media such as a socialist newspaper. So it doesn't surprise me that people aren't accustomed to thinking in those terms.

All representations are intentionally made to be ridicuuclous. On one episide of the TV show Seinfeld, they had a friend who "is a communist." The only mention of the friend's views was that he was against the existence a delicatessen, because a deli has several kinds of foods next to each other on the shelf, and he is "against classes." This is the total idiocy that the major media give the American people.

Posted: 22 Sep 2007 08:57 am Post subject:

which is one reason I like the amendment proposal. And more and more I am thinking not running on a socialst party but something like "congress" party.

They are playing a very dangerous game with themselves.. (Analogy alert) like monocultue in a forest of cloned trees. The one disease that the genotype is not resistant to spreads like wildfire.

Posted: 22 Sep 2007 07:32 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 23 Sep 2007 01:35 pm Post subject:

For some reason revleft is down now. But in my last post in "should you particiapate in elections" I stated that along with the IWW that I am against the notion of a worker's party, other than as campiagn committees to get the amenedment proposal before the workers.

Posted: 23 Sep 2007 05:11 pm Post subject:

There's a lot more that a working class political party needs to do besides an amendment. The U.S. keeps opposing every international suggestion intended to protect the planet's ecosystem. The U.S. keeps entertaining and occasionally passing bills that violate civil liberties. The U.S. has 30,000 nuclear missiles.

Posted: 23 Sep 2007 06:42 pm Post subject: Statement of the Obvious

Greetings,

OK, it seems time for our annual "Statement of the Obvious" here in this forum. Regarding distribution of land and dwelling in the new CS, you guys are making me nauseous, going around in circles needlessly, ala' questions like this:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 23 Sep 2007 07:33 pm Post subject:

Mike:

There's a lot more that a working class political party needs to do besides an amendment. The U.S. keeps opposing every international suggestion intended to protect the planet's ecosystem. The U.S. keeps entertaining and occasionally passing bills that violate civil liberties. The U.S. has 30,000 nuclear missiles.

Dave:

Nothing you list says that workers would benefit from a political party.

Posted: 23 Sep 2007 11:06 pm Post subject:

As to land and dwelling I will stick to my guns on this issue. Like I wrote before it will take a miracle to have a labor organization--perhaps a confederacy of labor organizations--for the public production of commodities which includes various types of construction and manufacturing. The land and dwelling issue is outside of production and has to be treated differently. People in the big cities already own lots with their houses while others live in apartments and high rises. These people chose to live their and if they want to go rural then what's to stop them? If they want a dwelling with a bit more land then why is there a fuss? If you get a group to determine who got what then I would say that that was already done in the former Soviet Union and a lot of people were homeless there too.

Posted: 23 Sep 2007 11:28 pm Post subject:

One thing to think about John is how is the validity of current title to land justified?

And what happens to the mortgages once the revolutiion has come.

I have a whole bunch of property which I own about 12% of. Why an I justifed to make a killing off of the demsise of banks? Ditto all of my personal debt.

But I am also with you about a "needs" committee. Bullshit.

I do think that the way out of it is to build a way out of it. Build houses that people are going to want to live in more than holding onto their energy inefficient wrecks they have now. But if people want to stay in them, fine by me. And perhaps allow the property to be passed for a generation or two but that's it. But truly I do not foresee a problem. Is there a more energy efficient place that I can stay where the cultivation of lawns is illegal, but close enough to where I can get work and walking distance to a decent library? I'll move there in a minute. I have to pay a monthly fee out of my LTVs instead of a mortgage payment taxes, insurance, upkeep? Where do I sign?

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 12:00 am Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 02:05 am Post subject:

John wrote:

I have no doubt that the frenzy would settle down after capitalism and more people would op for a permanent place to stay. I am totally against having to stand in line hoping to get a place to live while those who take the request live in beautiful homes. If our labor is in the form of Time Labor Vouchers or money then we have to acknowledge that what we earn to purchase is ours. That includes land and the house it sets on.

dave writes:

But you never buy land, only title to land and it's a limited title at that.

Even though you say that you stand by your guns on this, and I respect that, you will mellow. And it's not just capitalism that has people on the move. People like to move, especially when they will have economic freedom of being able to pick up and go anywhere and be assured of good paying work and a decent place to live they will go.

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 04:46 am Post subject: Various

John wrote:

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 09:21 am Post subject:

A committee can determine what an industrial project needs. (To build that skyscraper, here's how much steel and concrete you'll need.)

A committee can't determine what an individual needs, because desire and need form a continuous spectrum. After people have already met biological needs, the word "need" is redefined to mean any desire. For a million years people didn't have air conditioners, then, as soon as it was invented, people thought they needed it.

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 11:03 am Post subject:

Vince:

Anyone who doesn't like the idea of a Needs committee apparently doesn't trust their fellow man, even after the revolution. If not, what makes you think this revolution is going to work? It has already failed.

dave to Vince:

Yours has failed, and you admit it. At least for the time being.

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 11:05 am Post subject:

Vince wrote:

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 02:50 pm Post subject:

Jon wrote:

You got me there about the title. And the title to the land will give people a sense of ownership as being theirs. A person who earns his LTV/money should have the right to purchase a home and "X" amount of land with it. If land distribution was left to a group of people a lot of problems would surface. Too many here in the West would associate that sort of thing with the Soviet Union. I would expect favoritism be given to friends and families of the "Home/Land Distribution Council." I don't think people will appreciate being assigned to live where they don't want to live while the friends and families of the Council would get what they want and have that beautiful house overlooking Lake Ontario. And what about those who are living on Reservations? What about those who culturally congregate together?

dave writes:

of course it's a damned healthy fear. I don't know how old you are John, and this must seem a bit presumptuous - but as you get older you see that your roots are not in the soil but in your family, your friends, society and ultimately in your own mind. Perhaps it was becuase we had a stable living situation when I grew up. My parents sold our house when i was about 36. All four of my grandparents lived and within 8 miles. Until I was about 15 all of my aunts uncles and cousins lived within the same radius. And now everyone except one or two are in the cemetery or have moved away, some halfway round the world. The locale has so developed over the years that I can't stand to go back there for more than a day. That is not my home anymore.
But that doesn't say that you will be like that. The point that I am continually trying to make is that the solutions will be more plentiful and available on the other side of the revolution. We don't change for fear of losing (are you happy Mike?) real estate ownership, we won't have it anyway.

dave

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 07:37 pm Post subject: Tsk-Tsk

John,

>Why the unprovoked belligerence?

>Because I get the impression that you think I should have already had everything read.

Given the courtesy and even warmth with which I've always treated you, even making it a point to

DELETED

, etc., I don't think I deserve this kind of brusque and irascible remark from you. If it comes because you're in a bad mood, that's more understandable, of course, but that's where an apology should have come in, after the fact.

Like I said: love ethic after, and before, the revolution, will help keep this fractured movement cohesive and on-track.

Best,

vince

PS. Dave, I know you're now going to respond with something both stupid and hostile. So in advance let me say: please shut the **ck up.

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 10:00 pm Post subject:

I edited that. Arguing and cursing is okay, but it shouldn't include information about another person's personal or family situation.

Posted: 24 Sep 2007 10:24 pm Post subject:

Vince wrote:

PS. Dave, I know you're now going to respond with something both stupid and hostile. So in advance let me say: please shut the **ck up.

dave writes:

I didn't know it was quacking.

Posted: 25 Sep 2007 03:01 pm Post subject: Publicly Posted

Mike,

Let me raise your awareness a little, and perhaps jog your memory.

Everything deleted in my post, above, has been publicly posted here, or in my forum, by John, himself. In fact, some time ago, in your own forum right here, John posted

DELETED

So give me some credit, will you. You really need to do your homework and think twice, or thrice, before DELETING someone's remarks.

(This is why, for example, in my own forum I have an area where I would attempt to provide public accountability in case I ever banned someone from the forum.)

Maybe you should have asked John first if he found a violation of privacy in my remarks, before summarily deleting them.

So please return those remarks, or apprise me and I'll try and recall them, and then repost them. They constituted what was, to me, an important response to John's previous sharp and inappropriate remark to me. Trying to mend fences here, you dig?

2. In the future, if deletion is actually necessary in a given situation, I'd suggest you return to a smaller typeface, as that large one is rather insulting.

And Dave--very funny! A positive and constructive response to my angry remark.

Best,

vince

Posted: 25 Sep 2007 03:05 pm Post subject:

I still conclude that socialists just don't have a rational plan for land distribution, as I said several times before. For continuously produced merchandise, several of us may have different beliefs but each of us is consistent with oneself. For land ownership, where the supply is fixed, and the population in continuous turnover, all we have is some line items on an agenda, such as "don't take away the individual's house." We don't really really have an economic system in mind.

When people ask me how socialism would operate, I'm not going to pretend that this part is all figured out. I will tell them that we only know what to do with steadily produced goods, with my own preference being the use of incomes and prices based on work time credits, but that socialists have a much more chaotic form of diagreement about how residential land should be distributed. I will tell peope that because it's the truth.

And people will definitely ask, too. Like one guy I was talking to in a newsgroup, after hearing all about my opinion of socialism, and finally preparing to ask me any questions that he might have for me, he had only one question for me. The only question he wanted me to answer was this: "How would it be decided who gets to live on the beachfront lots?" No kidding -- that was his one big question about the meaning of socialism. My answer to him was: "I don't have the slightest idea. That kind of thing has yet to be even discussed by most socialists. What do you think should be done?"

Posted: 25 Sep 2007 03:10 pm Post subject:

Dave and Vince, both of you please stop the baby sandbox play and return to discussing social programs.

Posted: 25 Sep 2007 03:39 pm Post subject:

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" seems to have grown out of the so-called Romantic and Humanist genres of European literature, when people came to believe (as they often worded it) "human nature is perfectible." The idea originally was (much of this is from Rousseau), if everyone had plenty of food, if we had universal education, if the prisons would rehabilitate instead of punish, etc., the good that is inherent in human nature would be allowed to blossom. This was a rebellion against the old premise that human nature is evil, as demonstrated by the sin in the Garden of Eden, and people must be indoctrinated and threatened to be good. Just the opposite, said the Romantics -- human nature is good, and people have been corrupted by bad institutions. This new kind of thinking resulted in ideas for communal living arrangements, the people we now call the utopian socialists. It also led to the appearance of anarchists, who made the connection that laws will be unnecessary when the intrinsic good of human nature is allowed to come out. Soon afterward, the scientific method, which had already made advances in physical sciences -- Lavoisier had discovered oxygen, Torricelli had studied the atmosphere, etc., made it seem that we could have a new discipline called social science. Durkheim coined the term "sociology." The debate about whether human nature is innately good or evil continued in the form of the conflict between science (human nature is good) versus superstition (human nature is evil). This was the background for the utopian socialists picking up the motto, pieced together from biblical verses, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." The phrase is really an interjeciton about people having a hidden human nature, and that this nature is "good." Any modern socialists who point to the proverb as a reasonable formula for how we might live in the technology age are expecting too much of it. An economic system cannot be based on a poetic verse about human nature.

Posted: 25 Sep 2007 04:34 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

if we had universal education, if the prisons would rehabilitate instead of punish, etc.,

Dave writes:

if the wizard were a wizard who would serve.

Posted: 25 Sep 2007 04:59 pm Post subject:

Mike writes:

I still conclude that socialists just don't have a rational plan for land distribution, as I said several times before.

Dave writes:

Then let us not bother with prescribing an economic plan.

We have a working political system in place that is totally (as can be) capable of resolving the problems when they occur.)

I will toot the amendment horn one more time.

"Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Congress can do whatever is not patently unconstitutional regarding this amendment. Congress can recognize that it would be a good thing to put all land titles on hold until congress and local govt.s had an idea as to what to do. This would be a recognized part of sovereignty to balance the right of the people as a whole to the natural resources with an orderly process for that to happen.

Taxation, zoning and eminent domain along with the tremendous potential to build top rate housing for all will all be very effective tools to resolving practically any kinds of issues re housing, and "allocation" of land.

So in short, I am suggesting that we stop proposing socialsm. Only the 'social" can even know what that could possibly be full blown. Who are we to even think that we have anything to propose (watch for the fucking analogy) for the big picture.

What I want is for the workers to collectively and democratically own control and operate the means of production. If you want to call that socialsm, alright it's socialsm - but I am done with the crystal ball stuff. I think we need to look at the implementation of the workers owning the means of production and allow the rest to be determined by the people. That's what we are proposing, democracy and an industrial democracy is the basis of it. Put that into place and then ask me what to do about houses. Not doing away with the state gives us a whole lot of resources and eliminates a whole raft of problems that would otherwise immediately ensue with a revolution that took out the state.

Posted: 25 Sep 2007 06:29 pm Post subject:

Posted: 25 Sep 2007 06:39 pm Post subject:

Posted: 25 Sep 2007 08:17 pm Post subject:

You can do that if that is your fondest desire. (I mean politically.)

No I am no longer going to tell bed time stories for people. (happily ever after). I have a solution. If people don't have a problem that fits the solution, and they can't see it with just the slightest nudge I really don't have the time nor inclination to set them on the path to right thinking.

ANALOGY ALERT

If you walked down a road and see a ten dollar bill on the ground, how much convincing would you need to pick it up? Do you say to yourself - but all the things at the store cost too much and they probably aren't going to have just what I want anyway?

I'm telling people my idea to implement industrial democracy. If right off they can't see that's a good idea, or even after they take the leaflet home and think about it for a while, my job is done. I just don't have time to (analogoy alert) bake cakes for people:

I will take my life into my hands and I will use it
I will win the worship in their eyes and I will lose it
I will have the things that I desire
And my passion flow like rivers through the sky
And after all the loves of my life
After all the loves of my life
I'll be thinking of you
And wondering why

MacArthur's Park is melting in the dark
All the sweet, green icing flowing down
Someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'Cause it took so long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, no!
Oh, no
No, no
Oh no!!

http://www.metrolyrics.com/macarthur-park-lyrics-richard-harris.html

The amendment is going to change just what it says. If people want to know how things are going to run afterward I'm going to explain how i think it will work, You will elect representative who hopefully will address the problem but it's up to you to get involved and elect the right people and keep the candle to their feet. It's called representative democracy people. The amendment (ANOTHER FUCKING ANALOGY -THESE THINGS ARE TAKING OVER) levels the playing field as far as wealth goes so not only does it establish industrail democract, it enables political democracy as well.

What do people want from us? That's all that they're going to get from me. If they don't want it - well in 40 years, and probably less, I won't have to think about it anymore.

Posted: 25 Sep 2007 10:02 pm Post subject:

I said once and I 'll say it again that I agree with the amendment proposal. The public is one thing and then we have a small handful of Lefties who preach Marx, Lenin, Bakunin, De Leon, et al. The public could care less about social theories or revolution being preached. Look at the Soviet Union. The people were educated from childhood with Marxist-Leninism and when they grew up they decided it was a bunch of bullshit and threw the Commies out of political office preferring capitalism. Public ownership of production is just that...everyone goes to their place of employment and never meets the capitalist. It will dawn on them one day but it won't be because someone was talking Marx. It's gonna be plain talk.

Today, at work, I had to do an orientation program on a computer. I realized that no Commie or Anarchist would understand how distribution through sales work. Money is used in exchange for products and from these sales we know what to order from distributors or from the warehouses. The emphasis was that everything has to be accounted for in order to maintain accuracy of what comes in and what goes out. A person can actually learn from Capitalism. The only problem with capitalism is the exploitation and profit motive. Socialism is a state of mind that is learned but very few are stepping forward to present what socialism might be. Dave done good with the amendment proposal because it goes to the public. Piss on the Left.

Mike wrote:

Posted: 25 Sep 2007 11:02 pm Post subject:

Under the amendment natuarl resources are owned in common therefore under my brilliant proposal there would be no ownership of land. No ownership of title to land. How can it be justified?

I would say that more than likely congress will have to acquiece to millions of home ownwer's fear of loosing everything and mandate that for the time being realestae titles will be frozen,

But you keep raising this problem like t is an actual problem. There is nothing at all except rhetoric that says that there is even a problem.

BUT if people do have to have a system where land is exclusively possed and bought and sold they aren't ready for cooperative life. maybe after the sheriff comes and puts them all out of the houses becuase they can't pay the mortgages or taxes they'll think differently I guess.

Posted: 25 Sep 2007 11:53 pm Post subject:

Posted: 25 Sep 2007 11:58 pm Post subject:

Posted: 26 Sep 2007 12:06 am Post subject:

I support the amendment proposal because it expresses the right thing to do without any compromises. It can be done in parallel with all other activities that we may consider necessary (SIU, media, etc.). It aids all such other activities because of its educational potential. So the amendment campaign wouldn't be a sink for resources. It would be a generator of resources.

Posted: 26 Sep 2007 11:51 am Post subject:

You missed the part where the lot or acre cost one dollar which is to say that it is the cost of the title and that price is fixed permanently. The house is built with labor and laborers are paid for their labor including material. Labor + material + title = price of the building + land. The idea is that a person holds the title to the land which means it is his/her land. If a person sells his/her building then the title can only be sold for one dollar. Lets also say that the price of the house depreciates rather than gaining value. The price drops over the years to the point where the new owner just may build a new structure. The house is old and a new and more efficient home will be built and the process starts again. You get new improved structures over the years. You are going to have supply and demand. We just have to admit that. To each to each is a pipe dream. The only thing different is that no profits are made from the start of production down to where commodities are sold.

Posted: 26 Sep 2007 02:14 pm Post subject:

It's a fixed dollar per acre, why would anyone ever bother to sell at all? One could keep it even thought they have no planned use for it, like my skiing equipment in the basement that I haven't used since the 1960s.

Also, why wouldn't a few people just buy repeatedly but never sell, untill they own a good chunk of the continent, like Ben Cartwright and the Ponderosa?

Posted: 26 Sep 2007 03:23 pm Post subject: Stuff and Nonsense

Hello,

Mike wrote:

Posted: 26 Sep 2007 03:36 pm Post subject:

I think I understand now. The way human nature is we can expect greed to kick in. Some people will horde land and leave it sit for the plants to grow and the animals to roam. If that's the case then Socialism can never work no matter how logical or reasonable it is. Humans are not the mythical Star Trek Vulcan that look at themselves and society through cold emotionless logic. To go from property owner to property-less will not go over with a lot of people and I mean a lot. If people buy one dollar lots then I would expect that they build a home on it. If they sell it would go for less than what they built the structure for and would be loss revenue. One more thing, why would people buy up lots and acres and hold them? Is this a Socialist fear?

Posted: 26 Sep 2007 04:38 pm Post subject:

And why is land title to be the only bourgeois private property that should be subject to special treatment? How about patents, private mortgages, bank deposits? Stocks, pension plans, annuities life insurance, etc.??

Well I guess that's it then we will never have socialsm until we 3 or 4 can come up with answers to how we will make everyone happy and not a single person can complain that that is unfair BECAUSE that's what Socialism is all about, isn't it? being fair???

if anyone thinks that they have a viable future under capitalism tell them to go away and enjoy that future to the max. It is just not my job to convince people. I have carried that burden long enough. And I must admit that I haven't been all that good at it anyway.

Either we're gong to take a bath and get rid of private property or it's going to kill us. Why am I entitled to the benefit of all of the attendant rights of "ownership" to a described portion of the surface of the earth? The guy that I "bought" it from bought it from some one bought it from some one who eventually stole if from the Indians. Why is our "ownership" any better than the Indians'?

Why is my "my" any more important to me than Bill Gates' or anyone else's "my" is to them? if someone could explain that to me I would be most appreciative.

Posted: 26 Sep 2007 05:29 pm Post subject:

Posted: 26 Sep 2007 05:37 pm Post subject:

Posted: 26 Sep 2007 06:01 pm Post subject:

Posted: 26 Sep 2007 06:08 pm Post subject:

Posted: 26 Sep 2007 06:16 pm Post subject:

Posted: 26 Sep 2007 07:00 pm Post subject:

Enjoy Part One. Parts two and three are located on Related Videos

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4728056907669314763

Posted: 26 Sep 2007 08:41 pm Post subject:

dave asked:

And why is land title to be the only bourgeois private property that should be subject to special treatment? How about patents, private mortgages, bank deposits? Stocks, pension plans, annuities life insurance, etc.??

Mike answered:

Land is the only materially useful resource with an absolutely fixed quantity

dave asks:

That seems all the more reason to not afford it special status.

Posted: 26 Sep 2007 08:48 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Exactly my point.There is no apparent way to set up any purely rational system of land ownership. No matter what society does, it will be a pragmatic choice that gets made just because something must be done,

dave writes:

Isn't this one reason that we are leaving the political govt. in place? That's where these kinds of issues belong not with the SIU.

Perhaps we should take the natural resources clause right out. Congress would still have the right to impose a confiscatory tax under current contitutional law if it wanted to. (I will check into this more however.)

Posted: 26 Sep 2007 08:55 pm Post subject:

How could something BEING unique be a reason NOT to treat it in a unique way?

Posted: 27 Sep 2007 06:03 pm Post subject:

not becuase it is unquie but because of the limited nature of it and the increase no doubt of people who are going to want to populate it and will be able to afford to. How are we going to treat title owners under present captalism as entitiled above their fellow workers? What becuase they PAID for it? What the f. are workers PAYING for who work as less than slaves now IN PART so that we can have super low prices?

Posted: 27 Sep 2007 06:21 pm Post subject:

I'm afraid so, yes, treat today's owners as entitiled above their fellow workers becuase they paid for it. If you don't, then there is no right for today's homeowners to keep their homes after D Day, and that means you just lost perhaps half of the working class support for socialism. Believe it or not, there are some people out there who don't want world peace as much as they want their tomato gardens.

Posted: 28 Sep 2007 02:47 pm Post subject:

And those who have not paid for it, say have only paid for 15% of of becuase they have a mortgages? and those who are in a zero equity situation? Their's will be taken right away? And what about those who have paid for property from profits on capital? They should keep their stolen booty?

And you have not answered regarding the super exploited. Only some workers can afford to buy a home. Partly I would suspect that their wages were a bit higher than subsistence levels. How about those workers who work below subsistence level and becuase they do we can get a walmart effect where those above subsistence are in fact benefitting from prices actually below exchange value. Don't the super exploited get their "forty acres and a mule" upon liberation?

There has to be some recognition of this problem or else the residential real estate exemptionists are going to look like pure bourgeois grabbers.

Posted: 28 Sep 2007 02:59 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

If you don't, then there is no right for today's homeowners to keep their homes after D Day, and that means you just lost perhaps half of the working class support for socialism. Believe it or not, there are some people out there who don't want world peace as much as they want their tomato gardens.

Dave writes:

Then I would suppose it depends on one which side of the fence the revolution starts on, and we have to look at the real possibility of a reaction I suppose with at least some of the landed proles on the wrong side. I guess we have to not predict what land holders' rights will be, but it would be far more wise and befitting of those who advocate democracy to emphasize that it poses a political question that the workers are going to have to work out through their elected political representatives. And if the political solution is not agreeable then we'll just leave capitalism in place and the home proles will loose their properties anyway or we can have a bloodbath in the streets over the question.

Posted: 28 Sep 2007 06:44 pm Post subject:

You said "... you have not answered regarding ..." Exactly my point. Socialists are totally confused about such things, and most have never thought about them at all. You said "there has to be some recognition of this problem..." Yes -- anyone who has recommendations about it should contribute those ideas

Posted: 28 Sep 2007 09:39 pm Post subject:

recognition that it is a politicasl problem that will have to be left to the pols to resolve, not yes it's a problem and ___________ is what the answer is.