|
Author
|
Message
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
 Posted:
25 Jun 2007 02:02 pm Post subject:
|
|
I was wondering about the Time Labor Voucher thread
and it all here archived. I going to re-read this to see how differently
I think now as to then.I might even get red faced :oops:
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
25 Jun 2007 08:04 pm Post subject:
|
|
I have to keep archiving because, if the MySQL
database crashes, restoring from a backup file is easy if the backup file
has a size less than 2 megabytes, but much more difficult if its larger
than that. Right now the backup file is 10 meg, so I'm way overdue. I
will be soon archiving the messages out of the religion topic and the
other largest ones.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
16 Mar 2008 11:44 pm Post subject:
|
|
I picked up a few tid bits
from another website in which to express my opinion.
|
Quote:
|
|
To begin with,
communism is a society without bosses or servants, without superiors or
subordinates, without masters or slaves — in short, communism
is a society without classes and the stress, conflict and antagonisms
that go with the existence of classes.
|
Class is either you are bourgeoisie or proletariat.
The membership of class is defined in relationship to the means of
production from what I understand. I don't believe in Communism and I
don't think I ever will considering it does not reflect what people are
psychologically. I am not saying people are lazy or anything like that
but people will look to find work that is the least physical and
stressful to them. There has to be organizational hierarchy structures.
Organizational structured existed long before Capitalism existed and I
believe that people of Socialism would used democratic processes to elect
people to leadership positions to direct production and distribution.
Perhaps we should call it Real World Socialism.
|
Quote:
|
|
It is also the
case that communism is a society without money. “Without money?!”
Yes, without money. Why does money exist? Basically, it was invented so
that one group of owners wouldn’t get screwed by another set of
owners. But, if you have a society where the factories and workplaces are owned in common, and
we can sit down and plan out three months, six months or even a year in
advance what we have to produce to provide all that we need, what point
is there to having money?
|
How odd the reasoning. Money was invented in
ancient times as a means of exchange because it was portable and easy to
carry. Wampum was used by native Americans. In 1637, the Massachusetts
Bay Colony declared wampum legal tender. Money been around for a long
time being a medium of exchange. It's good and all that people can sit
down and plan out production in advance--or would that be a Capitalist
behavior? It is logical to measure labor hours of each individual in
every employment setting which is why I support LTV as a form of currency.
I was bored so I wrote.
John T.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
17 Mar 2008 05:39 am Post subject:
|
|
Going back to the period of literature that some call
the Romantic period, there was a belief called "the perfectibility
of man." That was the time when many European writers people gave up
the religious idea of the original sin inherited from Adam and Eve, so
they assumed the opposite, that social change will someday make us
perfect. They believed that one day social institutions would be just,
and education would be efficient, and then the human character would be
perfected. The book "Emile" by Rousseau (published in 1762)
described civilization as the only thing that corrupts us, whereas our
underlying human nature that may one day be released is perfect. The
"noble savage" (Rousseau's term) is perfect. The utopian socialists,
such as Robert Owen, were influenced by that belief. This is the source
of those who claim that socialism will see all selfishness completely
disappear. If you try to tell them that, even if they're right about 99
percent of the selfishless disappearing, some amount of it will still
exist, they will react to you saying that with some strange emotions. And
it's a very fundamental disagreement, since they literally want to have
no individual accountability at all, which means that the existence of a
just a few selfish individuals could make the whole system crumble.
Similarly, they want to have no laws or enforcement, so the existence of
just a few violent gangs or warlords could cause the ruin of everything.
I can't get them to realize that they are hurting the socialist cause by
trying to offer the working class a dream that the working class already
knows is impossible and will always know to be impossible.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
17 Mar 2008 10:19 am Post subject:
|
|
ML:
I can't get them to realize that they are hurting
the socialist cause by trying to offer the working class a dream that the
working class already knows is impossible and will always know to be
impossible.
DS:
excellent
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
17 Mar 2008 01:14 pm Post subject:
|
|
Mike wrote:
|
Quote:
|
|
I can't get
them to realize that they are hurting the socialist cause by trying to
offer the working class a dream that the working class already knows is
impossible and will always know to be impossible.
|
I would say it's more of a "wet dream."
"Human nature" is rejected by many Anarchist, Socialist and
Communist as something that does not exist. If those beliefs are rooted
in the book "Emile" by Rousseau, then it has to be an
unrealistic belief.
|
Quote:
|
|
That was the
time when many European writers people gave up the religious idea of
the original sin inherited from Adam and Eve,
|
Thats an Xian concept but the Jews never did
believe in original sin whatsoever. Besides religious beliefs ordinary
people tend to be influenced by what is popular at the time. Today,
ordinary people are influenced by propaganda, the latest fashion styles,
money, sex, wrestling, Donald Trump, etc. But the Left will alway believe
that socialism will see all selfishness disappear. :roll:
|
Quote:
|
|
...even if
they're right about 99 percent of the selfishness disappearing, some
amount of it will still exist, they will react to you saying that with
some strange emotions. And it's a very fundamental disagreement, since
they literally want to have no individual accountability at all, which
means that the existence of a just a few selfish individuals could make
the whole system crumble. Similarly, they want to have no laws or
enforcement, so the existence of just a few violent gangs or warlords
could cause the ruin of everything.
|
There will alway be some people who would will act
in a manner that would harm people around them. We are human being and
none of us are perfect. Personal responsibility and accountability has to
continue to exist. No amount of change in society would magically make
everyone positive and caring. If no law enforcement existed then warlords
would fill that vacuum who would create those Capitalist markets with
their own form of currency and trade routes. Murders and rapes will
continue, if not increase, if not addressed. That is why I know that
Socialism will have to be almost as complicated as Capitalism. I say
"almost" because there will be many things simplified. I wonder
if these college kids should take a few psychology and law enforcement
classes.
John T.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
17 Mar 2008 06:40 pm Post subject:
|
|
One day about three years ago I was using the WSM forum and I suddenly realized
something. For about the hundredth time I was seeing them reply to me in
a certain way - I had said that the time vouchers idea would be best
because of (among other reasons) the need to generate disincentives for
"free riders". As usual, the utopians popped up like jack-in-the-boxes
and said, "Ooh, look, Lepore seems to think that human nature is
selfish and lazy!" As though that was supposed to pop my balloon
once and for all. But then I suddenly realized -- no, it's *I*, not
*them* who am saying that human nature is shaped plastically according to
the conditions that people are raised in. The utopians are the ones who
claim that people can be raised in an environment in which they know
there are no repercussions for being a cheater or free-rider, and yet no
one will ever turn out to be a cheater or a free-rider. They're the ones
who want a system that would materially reward the very behavior that
they deplore. I'm was the one saying that a society must have ways to
reward the behaviors that it wants more of, and disincentives for behaviors
that society would like to see dwindle. The utopians thought that they
were the ones who believe in a historically malleable human nature and I
was the one who believed in a rigidly predefined human nature. But, no, I
suddenly realized -- it's the opposite of that. Not only do the utopians
have a wrong view; they don't even describe their own view accurately.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
18 Mar 2008 11:00 pm Post subject:
|
|
I had a hard time trying to figure out what you wrote.
However, it is true that our environment, how we are raised at home and
economic conditions do play a major role in how we interact with each
other and society. The big thing that the Left ignores is that people can
make choices. If people we given a choice not to work the majority would
chose not to. And you know what? There are lazy people but it is also
true that most people are not lazy. If Socialism is to work then there
has to be incentives to keep things going. Lets face it, work sucks
period. But we don't want people as wage slaves or have forced slave
labor camps like the Soviet Union--which is one of the major reasons people
are afraid of Socialism. We can have our Democratic Socialist Industrial
Union and elect those in positions of leaders to direct production and
distribution but there has to be some incentive system for work and some
sort of penalty for non performance. Nothing drastic as the Capitalist
would do in firing and leaving people homeless. I do see a lot of
psychologist having to deal with workers in dealing with the new society.
I also see them trying to figure out why some people have a problem with
work. I hope what I wrote is understood.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
19 Mar 2008 12:40 am Post subject:
|
|
Perhaps there are two main reasons for the TLV system.
(1) Personal incentive for work. (2) For efficient planning, keep track
of the cost of production of everything.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
19 Mar 2008 11:40 am Post subject:
|
|
What I've been trying to say all along is that there
has to be more to the idea of workers owning the means of production. Got
to tell them how it will function. The TLV has to be presented as new
economics that will ensure the flow of production and distribution
throughout society.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
19 Mar 2008 06:38 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
The Greenman wrote:
|
|
tell them how
it will function
|
We have to give that description in some detail,
but in the form of a serious proposal, but not either a prediction nor a
demand.
Maybe we can take a cue from that scientist Zubrin,
who has an organization called the Mars Society, and proposes a goal
called "Mars direct". It's his suggestion for NASA to cancel
the proposed moon landing and go directly to Mars. He's got the whole
shebang worked out in some detail. Assembling the parts in orbit first
and then sending them to Mars. Two trips would be needed, the first trip
an unmanned one, for sending in advance the return vehicle that will
bring the people back home, it will be sitting on Mars waiting for them
before they even go there. The return vehicle will be taken there with an
empty fuel tank and will manufacture its own fuel after it gets there.
Lots of details provided. In 2003 he made a speech to the Senate
Commmerce Committee about his proposal (transcript).
But he doesn't predict that this is how things will
be, as though he claimed to know the one and only possible future. Also,
he doesn't present his plan and the only conceivable one, as though he
was trying to grab everyone by the throat and force them to accept it.
Instead, he takes the approach that he has a wonderful plan, the details
that have been drafted indicate that the plan would be workable, so come
gather around and hear about the advantages of it.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
19 Mar 2008 06:48 pm Post subject:
|
|
Maybe the TLV concept needs it's own web site, so it
can be promoted independently of the collection of De Leonist history
that I put on deleonism.org. We could get one of those free blog sites.
If so, we could start writing new material that can be used later.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
19 Mar 2008 11:01 pm Post subject:
|
|
That may not be a bad idea though I still think both
go hand in hand. I was looking at something a little bit ago called time
based currency. After reading a few articles I realized it had nothing to
do with labor time during the manufacturing and distribution of
production or anything else. The idea was if you help someone for an hour
then you get a certificate to trade in for someone else to help you. Not
a bad idea.
Then I been reading the WSM on labor vouchers and
it would seem that they think they speak for all socialist: Socialism
means free access to the goods and services produced by society without
any exchange, barter, trading, labor vouchers, or money. Instead of
arguing specifics socialists argue against the whole concept of labor
vouchers.
People won't exchange a defective item for one that
works? People are not going to barter and trade? Money has a tendency to
circulate and migrate to those who know how to exploit people in the
process. Then we have those pesky labor time vouchers which all Socialist
oppose. :roll:
Labor vouchers would tend to maintain the idea
that our human worth is determined by how much or how many goods we can
own (or produce).
How many people in the world look at the U.S. in
envy? I own things and they are trying to tell me that my labor to obtain
goods does not add to my worth? There is psychological gratification that
a persons gets when they work and then buy to obtain products and other
consumer goods. Some people buy outrages things but people do things that
defy logic at times. Our discussion here on time labor vouchers don't
even relate to what they think they are.
I like this one:...advertising creates needs.
Last I knew advertising was to elicit a response, a choice, to buy
something someone was selling. But it still boils down to
"choice." I have never ran out the door to buy something
because it was advertised. Sometimes something catching my eye or
interest but in no way was my arm being twisted. Don't these geniuses
realize that advertisement of goods or services has to continue? I guess
they are Borg or something like that. I sometimes wonder if Star Trek:
Voyager characterization of the Borg, as a collective, was in some way
based on the Soviet Union and Socialism in general? The idea of a
collective mindset and living in a hive. However, from what snake oil
they try to sell society will always have rules to follow.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
20 Mar 2008 01:46 pm Post subject:
|
|
I noticed something that those in the WSM haven't
realized. Marx critiqued Capitalism but withing that critique he showed
how workers understood structure and process in every aspect of
production and distribution--at least I think he showed it. De Leon and a
few others, I would suppose, realized this and wrote that there has to be
directing in every process. Hierarchy is not a bad word to me because I
always have to look, at times, to someone to either learn or told what to
do next. Some people DO need to be yelled at or disciplined (never in a
Capitalist or Leninist fashion) for not pulling their own weight. I see
this all the time. Some workers, if they can get away with it, will pawn
off his/her work on everyone else--remember I wrote "some."
Hierarchy, in a Socialist society, would be the result of electing those
people in those positions whether it is industrial or political. The
difference being that we elect those because we are the owners of
production, distribution and the political government from the bottom up.
This is far different to the capitalist who own and appoint top down.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
20 Mar 2008 06:53 pm Post subject:
|
|
Hmmm, let's look at some of things that
anarcho-utopians consider bad. Any kind of restrictions. Having to show
up for work. Having to stay at work until quitting time. Having to pay
for the goods that you want to shop for. If you refuse to work, then you
won't get paid, and then you can't go shopping. Any kind of government.
Hierarchy of any kind. I'm afraid I can see a pattern there. I generally
don't like to characterize people; I prefer to consider their ideas and
not them as individuals. But isn't the pattern evident? Look at the
collection: No law-makers or cops, no work supervisors, and no price
tags. That's an interesting collection of choices. In that collection,
what is the pattern? These are the goals of people who are emotionally
like small children! Mommy and daddy can't get away with telling me that
I can't have a cookie. I'll throw my bowl at mommy and daddy. The teacher
can't get away with telling me that I have to do arithmetic. I'll throw
all of my books on the floor.
It's quite reasonable to oppose the kinds of
authority and hierarchy and rules that class-divided and crisis-ridden
society imposes. But it's unreasonable to extrapolate and say, even when
the day comes that people no longer have class-divided and strife-ridden
society, that we still shouldn't have any form of authority or rules.
That's getting away from being a thoughtful revolutionary and just having
a temper tantrum.
This isn't going to be the basis of my future
writings about the TLV debate. I'm going to have to get back to focusing
on the ideas and not the characters.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
20 Mar 2008 11:58 pm Post subject:
|
|
I noticed it and read plenty that any form of
authority or rules are bad including the discipline parents have to do
with their children in their upbringing. Personally, I wonder where at
what point did socialism leave the world of reality in favor for a world
of fantasy?
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
21 Mar 2008 06:09 am Post subject:
|
|
|
The Greenman wrote:
|
|
at what point
did socialism leave the world of reality in favor for a world of
fantasy
|
It seems that some people forgot that the task is
to choose: "there are a number of ways that people can administer
large organizations - let's identify some procedures that would add up to
an improved arrangement", and they thought the task was to insist:
"let's call for a perfect world ... Utopia ... Shangri-La".
I'm all in favor of seeking a perfect world, but it
doesn't have to be the first step. We can make the managerial method a
lot more democratic and the compensatory method a lot more equitable.
That's a good first step. Then people will be able to take another look,
and continue from that point.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
21 Mar 2008 11:12 am Post subject:
|
|
I can see why you would want
to go after the idea and expose them as a fallacy. I took this example
from the WSM website:
|
Quote:
|
|
Today, goods
are produced to make a profit. It is therefore important to sell them,
and in order to do that people must be convinced to buy the goods. It
does not matter that the goods may have little or no real utility, the
important consideration is selling them. With this in mind, advertising
creates needs. Goods which never existed before, suddenly become
absolute requirements—then they sit in closets, unused.
|
Advertisement does not create a need. It is a
choice that is for sure but if an consumer goods are available then
people will buy them. Some things that look like something worthwhile
will sit in the garage or closet but these people (WSM) don't understand
that these consumer goods were paid for by the very labor people worked
for to get a check. It up to the individual how often an item has
personal use whether they sit unused or in use
|
Quote:
|
|
A large
section of the genre of time-saving appliances is geared to a market
that must be convinced that taking 5 seconds to chop a carrot (or whatever)
for supper is too long: it can supposedly be done in 1 second if only
the consumer purchases the latest, greatest appliance. That is wasteful
of the earth's resources and of the labor required to produce those
appliances. Without a huge advertising industry pushing the consume,
consume, consume ethic at us, most people will not object to spending
an extra few seconds doing household chores.
|
But the whole idea of inventions was to save on the
time to do things. Here they trying to dictate what people should buy and
use. It's also easier to use a rotor-tiller than a shovel, hoe and metal
rake to create a vegetable garden.
|
Quote:
|
|
Many consumer
goods are used rarely. Perhaps sharing them in a neighborhood will
replace the idea that everyone needs one of everything. This will
reduce the number of these items required. That means reduced
production and reduced scarcity (and therefore no need to limit access
to these goods).Some simple examples:
Lawn mowers: Maybe five or ten per block will supply the needs of
everyone on the block. And maybe some avid gardeners, because they
enjoy it, will do the yards of other neighbors. Automobiles: Most cars
sit idle for most of the day, some are used only a few times a month.
Combined with intelligent changes in how we work, an appropriate
transit system in most towns and cities can easily eliminate the need
for many cars, without significantly increasing inconvenience to people
who, today, drive to work. There is no reason that every family will
want to own one or more cars (as is almost an accepted norm in
countries such as the United States and Canada).
|
So, since now the work force has been reduced to
near nothing these people want to march into everyone house and take any
extra items. They are going to take that extra micro wave, toaster,
computer the kids use in the other room, most of your clothes--order that
everyone in the house bathe once a month to cut down on water usage--and
then demand the keys to the car and drive off. They are going to have an
ass full of rock salt if they do. :wink:
This is way too much of an overnight change and
they are trying to create a world that most people would simply reject
outright. That is why I wrote that they have left the world of reality.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
21 Mar 2008 08:05 pm Post subject:
|
|
Another thing they are going to get an ass full of
rock salt for, when people ask the WSM members how society should handle
people who won't volunteer for work, or how society should handle it if
people consume too much obsessively (problems for which the TLV already
has the fixes built in), the WSM people often say that neighbors will
apply cultural pressure to them, watch them, nag them. To me they make it
sound like the old Memmonite-Hutterite-Amish "shunning". One
critic visiting the WSM forum paraphrased the WSM goal as "a society
of busybodies."
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
21 Mar 2008 08:46 pm Post subject:
|
|
But what they are suggesting and wanting would be a
throw back to horse and buggy days. They sound as though they want to
live like the Amish but the Amish would out work them any day of the
week. Amish work for pay by the way but the only volunteer work is within
their own community. The WSM people are absolutely absurd with their
beliefs.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
01 Apr 2008 11:14 am Post subject:
|
|
I have a question concerning LTVs. Would prices rise
on commodities to reflect scarcity? How would those situation where some
products can't be produced to keep up with demand perhaps due to floods
or famine?
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
01 Apr 2008 04:20 pm Post subject:
|
|
ML:
One critic visiting the WSM forum paraphrased the
WSM goal as "a society of busybodies."
DS:
Busybodies at a free for all. God help us.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
01 Apr 2008 04:36 pm Post subject:
|
|
JT:
I have a question concerning LTVs. Would prices
rise on commodities to reflect scarcity? How would those situation where
some products can't be produced to keep up with demand perhaps due to
floods or famine?
DS:
Reminds me of a WC Fields movie - someone who
Fieilds suckered into a poker game meekly asked Fields if this was a game
of chance. And Fields' reply: "Nah, not the way that 'I' play it!!
So this depends all upo how we set it up. Actually
we wouldn't be producing commodities. Just filling orders.
Things that get scarcer require more labor to
produce so that would pretty much be a natural disincentive to just
having to have that item because it will take more labor hours to obtain
it.
On the other hand I can see workers in some cases
simply not responding to "consumer" demand - just the opposite
of what is done under capitalism.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
01 Apr 2008 04:53 pm Post subject:
|
|
I don't see how prices could rise due to a flood or
famine. Why would people want to take advantage of the misfortunes of
others if the profit motive had no part in the industries?
Prices sitting at high levels due to natural
scarcity, like gold having a higher price than iron -- that's a different
thing, it's acceptable, and it's necessary. For the substance to be
naturally rare is a form of the situation in which a large amount of human
labor is required to produce it.
But there's nothing necessary about raising prices
after a disaster. After all, the same disaster didn't occur in other
locations, just in one location at a time.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
01 Apr 2008 05:53 pm Post subject:
|
|
Even though a flood or famine occurs in one area
products continue to be produced in another thus not affecting labor time
value of those commodities. So, we are not talking about a buyer/seller
relationship as capitalism whose goal is to sell high and buy low but
filling orders. Would it be safe to say the social store is a sort of
market where goods are sold? I do see it as such but in the sense not as
the exchange of commodities for money. An exchange takes place but it is
not about money making as all today's products reflect. I can see how
people would have a hard time seeing how this system would work when all
they were taught to do was look at everything through capitalist glasses.
I have to admit that some things are a bit fuzzy at
times. i understand the process as this: People cut lumber in the woods
and machines put them on trucks for the mill. The mill cuts the wood and
saves the saw dust. The saw dust and wood is sent to places who have
ordered them such as a furniture factory, lumber yards, prefab wood
processing plant that uses sawdust to make flooring and other fabricated
items. The process starts from nature and goes through all different
sorts of processes (including handling) to make furniture, to sit in the
lumber yard to be used in construction for houses and a host of other
processes. Even after all of that the price of the wood and saw dust-glue
flooring would be much lower than under capitalism because the processes
don't pick up profits in each step. In each step the labor time is
counted right to the last step and it would be considered "at
cost" except for those extra labor time hours added which is like a
sales tax to pay for social services and education. I hope I got that
right because it took me a little thinking before I realized that a sort
of tax was added on each commodity even though Mike did explained it.
But if a product does become scarce as Dave wrote:
"Things that get scarcer require more labor to produce so that would
pretty much be a natural disincentive to just having to have that item
because it will take more labor hours to obtain it."
I understand that but what if people wanted that
scarce item and are willing to pay extra with their electronic labor time
credits which is possible. Ah, I get it, as I type, the extra labor time
needed is the higher price therefore people would pay for that extra time
put into it not because someone decided to do a hike. Not like under
capitalism where a scarce product's price is elevated artificially high
to make prices rise and to make profits above the norm due to the
competition among the sellers.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
02 Apr 2008 12:09 am Post subject:
|
|
Even if we consider a capitalist company, and it has
branches in may cities, it wouldn't have to respond to a local disaster
by raising local prices. Being large averages out the risks. If there's
disaster at the plant that makes clocks in Boloxi, Mississippi, that
doesn't mean the price of clocks has to rise in Boloxi. Why? Because the
cost of production of each clock is the cost of making all clocks
everywhere, divided by the total number of clocks that are made
everywhere.
But under capitalism, prices can go up merely by a
store manager telling stock clerk to raise them, and if the customers
will still buy it then there's nothing to inhibit that price increase.
The customers will still pay it if something as made them more desperate
than usual. So profitable business take a disaster it as an opportunity
to raise prices and get away with it. If the company is a national or
global one, it wasn't under any eocnomic conpulsion to raise prices,
except insofar as greed is a kind of compulsion.
This is a moral issue with me. I remember an
incident about twenty years ago when there was a hurricane or something.
People were desperate for emergency shelter. So some big fancy hotels in
that area immediately announced a new service: a person could rent a
blanket, and a two-foot-wide and six-feet-long patch of the floor to
spread that blanket out on, for the price of $400 per night. That
incident got me thinking about economics. What does it actually mean to
say that prices went up on Wednesday due to supply and demand? It means:
Someone cruelly took advantage of another person's bad luck -- what the
real estate business calls "the desperate widow effect". If the
cost of production was unchanged, they didn't have to raise prices. They
raised prices only because previous balances that had prices from rising
earlier had now became absent; in short, they knew they could get away
with it. It is hte moral equivalent to: I robbed the joint because I
didn't see any cop around here.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
02 Apr 2008 12:23 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Quote:
|
|
Even if we
consider a capitalist company, and it has branches in may cities, it
wouldn't have to respond to a local disaster by raising local prices.
Being large averages out the risks. If there's disaster at the plant
that makes clocks in Boloxi, Mississippi, that doesn't mean the price
of clocks has to rise in Boloxi. Why? Because of the cost of production
of each clock is the cost of making all clocks everywhere, divided by
the total number of clocks that are made everywhere.
|
This is why the SIU is one large economic
organization because if something like a disaster would happen in some
region or city it does not effect overall production or LTV prices on
goods or services. This economic form is simpler to maintain overall
production because we don't have this or that corporation raising prices
over the CEO having a boil lanced.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
02 Apr 2008 01:18 am Post subject:
|
|
I'd say that's one of the benefits of the SIU being
one large organization, not the initial reason. In my opinion, the
initial reason for bigness is that the use of the goods has to cover all
areas as well as all job types. Suppose ore from Kentucky goes to
refinement in Michigan, which goes to appliance assembly in New Jersey,
and a shopper in Ohio buys the appliance. That calls for either trade
among independent operations or for or one large operation, and I don't
trust the idea of trade among independent operations.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
02 Apr 2008 02:42 am Post subject:
|
|
Mike wrote:
|
Quote:
|
|
I'd say that's
one of the benefits of the SIU being one large organization, not the
initial reason. In my opinion, the initial reason for bigness is that
the use of the goods has to cover all areas as well as all job types.
Suppose ore from Kentucky goes to refinement in Michigan, which goes to
appliance assembly in New Jersey, and a shopper in Ohio buys the
appliance. That calls for either trade among independent operations or
for or one large operation, and I don't trust the idea of trade among
independent operations.
|
Did you know we are getting lurkers now and then
here on the forum? At any rate, what you wrote makes thing a bit more
clearer as to why the SIU would be large. All agriculture, factories,
mines, and distribution covers a huge geographical area in which no area
would be short on products produced. What would you call the exchange of
LTVs for commodities? It does not quite follow the idea of a market.
There is the buyer but the seller does not really sell since during the
exchange of LTVs the LTV itself ceases because he/she has bought the
labor time of the product created. Many think it won't work simply
because there is no circulation of LTVs. I don't see that problem since
people are "really" earning a living getting the full value of
the performed job and taking those earned electronic credits to the store
for exchange. It makes sense after awhile and we see that life would go
on.
I don't mean to bug you on this particular subject
but I am trying to find a way to paint a clear picture. Of course that
means I have to study more of Marx's critique of capitalism because so
many want to argue in favor of capitalism. It'll take time like learning
to play the electric bass guitar--I am thinking on picking up an acoustic
bass guitar because it is lighter in weight and will plug into an amp.
Won't be so hard on the back.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
02 Apr 2008 03:34 am Post subject:
|
|
I think the word 'exchange' applies to any economic
system because it's always exchange when the specializations of many
people go into one big melting pot. Marx fought against the use of the
word 'exchange' to apply to socialism, but I can't see a justification
for avoiding the word.
I don't call it a 'market' because I think that
word implies actors with opposite interests, a buyer who would like to
receive the maximum of goods for the lowest price, and a seller who would
like to deliver minimum of good at the highest price, and whoever is
strongest enough to hold out the longest has the greater control.
Socialism eleminates that wrestling match.
I don't call the goods in a socialist system
'commodities' because I associate that with 'market', people wrestling
over prices.
I use the word 'buying' for that act of going
shopping because if we didn't call it that it would seem to me like some
kind of obsession to make up new words without a good reason. But
socialism wouldn't have a seller to correspond to that buyer. Everybody's
network of cooperation, the big melting pot, would be the seller.
I use the word 'price' for the same reason - the
lack of a good reason to change it. I'm happy with describing socialism
as a nonprofit economy where the prices of goods will be set at their
cost of production.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
02 Apr 2008 04:33 am Post subject:
|
|
I'm off today from work and that's why I've been
asking away with questions. Good point on calling things goods rather
than commodities and retaining words that actually do describe what
happens. I've been using the word exchange a lot. People would exchange
labor vouchers for goods but it seems that the concept does not sink in
well with people. I understand there would have to be a price number
affixed to those goods sold and not all good would have the same price
tag.
Thanks for answering about "markets."
That was a good word choice that markets are nothing more than a
wrestling match between buyer and seller...a buyer who would like to
receive the maximum of goods for the lowest price, and a seller who would
like to deliver minimum of good at the highest price, and whoever is
strongest enough to hold out the longest has the greater control.
Socialism eliminates that wrestling match.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
02 Apr 2008 04:41 am Post subject:
|
|
What would happen if we did call socialist
distribution a kind of market, but then we explained that prices would be
calculated based on necessary labor, not making use of capitalism's
practice of "whatever she's willing to pay for
it"/"whatever he's willing to sell it for." My guess is
that people would immediately advise us that it wouldn't be a market at
all. Only the WSM members would call that a market. So we might as well
try to prevent confusion from the start.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
02 Apr 2008 12:40 pm Post subject:
|
|
Yeah, I know what you mean about other
"socialist" (even capitalist would say it) calling LTVs another
form of capitalism when you said yourself that (1.) the electronic medium
would not circulate and (2.) and there would be no markets for people to
wrestle over as to who is going to sell cheap and who is going to buy
high and who will wait the longest before the other party caves in.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
02 Apr 2008 03:49 pm Post subject:
|
|
Another question: I been looking at my gas, electric
and water bill. Since it takes labor to deliver these services would
people be billed or would the labor time cost (which includes acquiring
new generators, pumps, piping electric wires, etc., which all are
products of labor) be part of the price of goods? I don't think its such
a bad idea paying LTVs for these services since it would keep the measure
of labor time going. The concept would still be that the LTV would cease
to exist upon exchange when paying for these services. What do you think?
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
02 Apr 2008 07:39 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
The Greenman wrote:
|
|
Another
question: I been looking at my gas, electric and water bill. Since it
takes labor to deliver these services would people be billed or would
the labor time cost (which includes acquiring new generators, pumps,
piping electric wires, etc., which all are products of labor) be part
of the price of goods? I don't think its such a bad idea paying LTVs
for these services since it would keep the measure of labor time going.
|
The problem is that every product or service
contains a very small particle of the labor of millions of people. If we
can't list them all pricetag or invoice, why not list none of them, and
just have a total number?
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
|
Quote:
|
|
The concept
would still be that the LTV would cease to exist upon exchange when
paying for these services. What do you think?
|
You and Dave were the ones who earlier persuaded me
of the advantages of providing for circulation, so that Mon'n'Pop could
use the same distribution system to run a bed'n'breakfast joint. You were
so persasive that I finally agreed. Are you now doubting the advantages?
If the majority democratically approve that, then
they will have that, and if they don't approve that, then they then won't
have it. I think it's better for socialist literature to "teach the
debate" (to borrow a handy term from those involved in the
creationism-in-school controversy.) Let the literature say that there are
dozens of proposed blueprints, and give a summary of the pros and cons
that various people have claimed for them. Why does every socialist
pamphleteer claim to know outcomes? That approach hasn't been effective.
I say: let's try "teaching the debate."
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
02 Apr 2008 09:40 pm Post subject:
|
|
I never thought about that millions of people's labor
time embodied in every product or service. However, I should have asked
if the labor time voucher assurance fund would pay for those utility
services or would people get a bill for the labor time of the workers in
those fields? I hope you understand what I am saying.
Teach the debate. I am not so sure anymore about
mom n pop businesses since the last person off site raised more questions
than answers. I don't think I was talking about circulation of LTVs but
people being paid from the assurance fund in mom n pop restaurants so
that it would feel as though yhey ran their own business. Would not the
people who patronizes those places pay for food and drink. I do recall
you saying that people would pay a fraction in LTVs when they go to the
bar for a drink. Some people do own the buildings of bars and restaurants
and they might not feel so bad when the society comes along. the big
capitalist may not like us but the smaller ones might be persuaded to
support the new society.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
03 Apr 2008 12:17 am Post subject:
|
|
I would imagine that the labor cost of a gallon of
fuel oil including delivery, a kwhr of electric including transmission,
etc would be known and you would pay accordingly.
Not sure what is meant by "assurance
fund".
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
03 Apr 2008 12:42 am Post subject:
|
|
Dave wrote:
|
Quote:
|
|
I would
imagine that the labor cost of a gallon of fuel oil including delivery,
a kwhr of electric including transmission, etc would be known and you
would pay accordingly.
|
Assurance Fund is the the labor time credits that
are created with each hour of labor time. Mike wrote that for every 20
minutes of labor one labor credit would be created and earmarked to pay
those in health care, social services and education. Its like a sales tax
on goods. That's why I asked if utilities would be out of the "assurance
fund."
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
03 Apr 2008 10:16 pm Post subject:
|
|
Oh I see. With the usual caveats I do not see
utilities coming out of a fund set up to pay for societal programs unless
society decides that it wants to provide utilites as part of the package
deal, mush as I may or may not include utilities in the rent of an
apaprtment (I do not.)
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
03 Apr 2008 11:37 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
J.T. wrote:
|
|
The concept
would still be that the LTV would cease to exist upon exchange when
paying for these services. What do you think?
|
The first time I tried to answer that I screwed it
up and answered something you didn't ask.
Yes, each unit must cease to exist when it is
redeemed. This is because it is a tally of how much wealth is produced in
a given block of time but not yet allocated to either public functions or
individuals. After people who have worked a million hours have removed
from the inventory the products generated by a million hours, those
"tickets" to remove that amount from the inventory have to be
deleted. Easy to do if it everyone has an account in a computer.
My earlier error was to confuse that subject with
the issue of "checking out" some amount of one's unredeemed
vouchers from the system and circulating them privately. That is possible
if that's the system that people what. People may just like the idea of
giving moolah as wedding presents, or whatever else they want to do with
it.
-----
Smallville will be on tonight. I wonder if
it will be a new episode or a rerun. Last time, Clark's cousin from the
planet Krypton began teaching him how to fly so they could fight
Brainiac.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
04 Apr 2008 07:14 am Post subject:
|
|
|
The Greenman wrote:
|
|
Assurance Fund
is the the labor time credits that are created with each hour of labor
time. Mike wrote that for every 20 minutes of labor one labor credit
would be created and earmarked to pay those in health care, social
services and education. Its like a sales tax on goods. That's why I
asked if utilities would be out of the "assurance fund."
|
I'm curious about something. For some reason that's
not clear to me, Marx makes two lists, his general pattern being: the
total proceeds of labor are this, from this total we must deduct this
list of things, and this wealth remains to be distributed , but before
that can be distributed we must deduct this additional list of things. I
wonder why did didn't make one list. They're all social uses rather than
the goods that individuals pluck off the shelves at the stores. I'd stick
all of these kinds of things, with a very general "et cetera"
at the end, into one list.
------------------------------------------------------------------
excerpt from "Critique of the Gotha Programme":
---------------------------
Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds
of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the
co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.
From this must now be deducted:
- cover for replacement of the means of production
used up.
- additional portion for expansion of production.
- reserve or insurance funds to provide against
accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.
These deductions from the "undiminished"
proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be
determined according to available means and forces, and partly by
computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by
equity.
There remains the other part of the total product,
intended to serve as means of consumption.
Before this is divided among the individuals, there
has to be deducted again, from it:
- the general costs of administration not belonging
to production.
This part will, from the outset, be very
considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it
diminishes in proportion as the new society develops.
- that which is intended for the common
satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc.
From the outset, this part grows considerably in
comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the
new society develops.
- funds for those unable to work, etc., in short,
for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.
Only now do we come to the "distribution"
which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its
narrow fashion -- namely, to that part of the means of consumption which
is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
04 Apr 2008 08:00 am Post subject:
|
|
John, I like your name 'assurance fund', so I'm
adopting that name for it.
The way I've always interpreted that section of
Gotha excerpted above, it really means that everyone will have to work a
little bit longer for stuff they buy, because the additional amount of
production capacity will provide the uncharged items. Some of those
uncharged items will be seen by us as free services (education, medicine,
hurricane insurance,) while certain others (such as maintenance and
repair and administration), will be wealth that seems to have gone poof,
although they are necessary.
Why do I say that the assurance fund will have to
be provided by everyone working an additional number of minutes for
consumer goods? It's because of where those freebies are coming from.
Exactly why will the medical office be able to continue operating without
charging patients? For two reasons. (2) The work vouchers for the people
who work at the medical office would be created in the computer, in the
same way they are created for workers who manufacture physical goods; (2)
The office would receive all the supplies it needs without having to buy
them. What do those two things do to the accounting? Society has a little
bit less of a numerator (inventory of physical goods) to be divided by a
little but larger denominator (outstanding consumption vouchers), and the
result of that is the buying power of each hour's voucher that has been
reduced.
It doesn't matter whether we picture the deduction
as an income tax or as a sales tax, because they are the same thing in
essence. The income tax and the sales tax are just two ways of saying
that have to work a little bit longer to obtain the goods in the shopping
cart.
That we have to do it is clear. The only choice is
whether to make it invisible, but just having the computer add whatever
it needs to add to the price of everything, or whether we want to have a
report that itemizes it for every individual, as if I know that I must
work an extra hour per week, consisting of six minutes for free
education, five minutes for free medical services, three minutes for free
trains and busses. I would prefer the invisible method instead of the
itemized method, that is, the hour-price of goods simply being adjusted
upward. Making it invisible doesn't conceal anything from the public
because one pie chart of percentages for the deductions can be reported
in the news. The invisible deduction method would simplify each
individual's records. If you really want to see the deducitons itemized
for you as an individual, just log onto your account and select that
option, and the computer will apply the piechart of deductions to your
personal account statement. But do you really care that you worked an
extra five seconds last week so that the floors could be washed in the
office buildings? Nobody cares. We would all have to accept the fact that,
when we say that socialism gives the people "all" that we
produce, we will know that some of that "all" must be indirect,
and some of it not even apparent.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
04 Apr 2008 08:22 am Post subject:
|
|
In years past I have corresponded with Tom Wetzel, who
is with the syndicalist group Workers Solidarity Alliance and is also a
Parecon supporter. Tom has a few ideas similar to ours. I saw him use the
word taxes to refer to the deductions - to say that, after we go to a new
classless and worker-run system, "we will still have to pay
taxes". Before I heard him call it that I resisted using the word,
but after I heard him say it, I could see that it's really the same thing
as "a tax" or "taxes". We already have enough
new-word fever. We already say that our incomes won't be
"wages", and a plant's leftover inventory won't be
"profits", and the supervisor won't be the "boss" --
I can see good reasons for those vocabulary fixes. But at some point we
might as well reuse an old word. There's already too much of a gap between
everyone else's thinking and our thinking. Using an old word reduces the
gap. Besides, we're not fooling anyone -- everyone will say, "Oh,
you mean the taxes?" -- "Um, yeah."
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
05 Apr 2008 01:30 pm Post subject:
|
|
Not that it's that important, but it looks like that
"reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents,
dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc." as used by Marx
here has to do specifically with assuring the viability the means of
production in the face of natural disasters etc.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
05 Apr 2008 05:19 pm Post subject:
|
|
I thought Assurance Fund was a
better term and believe it or not I thought Marx used it in the Gotha
Programme. When I think of "insurance" I think of corporations
making profits and trying to screw you out paying for something after an
accident or natural disaster. Assurance Fund is what the name means...the
assurance that when the unfortunate happens it is assured that the funds
will take care situations.
|
Quote:
|
|
Not that it's
that important, but it looks like that "reserve or insurance funds
to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural
calamities, etc." as used by Marx here has to do specifically with
assuring the viability the means of production in the face of
natural disasters etc.
|
I bold text "assuring" from Dave's quote.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
05 Apr 2008 10:07 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
Not that it's
that important, but it looks like that "reserve or insurance funds
to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural
calamities, etc." as used by Marx here has to do specifically with
assuring the viability the means of production in the face of natural
disasters etc.
|
That's true, but in another paragraph two inches
away he says a similar thing about industrial expansion, maintenance,
general administration --- all these things have to be deducted from the
"general proceeds of labor" before we can know how much wealth is
available for individual human beings.
|
Quote:
|
|
assuring the
viability the means of production in the face of natural disasters
|
Plus: assuring that the medical and education
industries get the resources they need, assuring that the roads and
bridges will be maintained, assuring that research and development can be
carried out, ....
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
06 Apr 2008 05:23 pm Post subject:
|
|
Now this is where those on the Right would
complain--free education and health care. The idea that "I"
work and "I am" made to pay taxes so that children, especially
the children of the family I don't like, minorities [insert racial bias]
and the poor, who got themselves in that situation, and the government expects
"me" to pay for their education? Now there is Medicaid and
Medicare who give medical services, to the very people "I"
mentioned and it is nothing but socialism and "I am" tired of
it. I am being robbed by paying taxes to support lazy bums and minorities
who waltz right into the U.S. stealing jobs from us true Americans. It's
socialism plain and simple.
It is rather hard to talk to people who, through
Right Wing propaganda, believe they are being robbed by the government.
They also believe if they don't make money (show a profit) for their
employer they believe they are jeopardizing their income for bread and
butter. It is very hard to tell them they are being robbed by the wages
they get. Discuss?
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
07 Apr 2008 12:29 am Post subject:
|
|
I would try to persuade someone about the point that
we are robbed in our wages more than we are robbed by the government. I
can understand why it's difficult for some people to see what's
happening. It's not immediately obvious that, when X hands a paycheck to
Y, then X is actually robbing Y. The optical illusion has been assembled
carefully.
I wouldn't try to persuade someone who says they
shouldn't have to pay for someone else's education and health care. The
people in the latter category, I would "talk past them" -- I
would merely refer to them as the bad examples when I'm talking to
others.
The physicist Max Planck once said: ""New
ideas come to be accepted, not because their opponents come to believe in
them, but because their opponents die and a new generation grows up
that's accustomed to them." ------ People who complain that they
shouldn't have to pay for someone else's education and health care,
historical progress is waiting for them to die.
There aren't that many of them. They're not just
the right wing -- they're the loonie right.
More often, from the mainstream right wing, the
complaint is that government is inefficient and incompetent. They will
say, "the crowd of bureaucrats who brought you the IRS and the motor
vehicle bureau -- do you want them also handling your health care?"
That we can answer. We need to explain how "socialism" through
workers' organizations isn't the same as "socialism" thorugh
government bureaucracy.
But when people are not merely part of the right
but the loonie right, if their complain is "why should I have to pay
for someone else?", they're hopeless. I can't talk to them.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
07 Apr 2008 03:57 pm Post subject:
|
|
anti-tax nuts will never be made not nuts by reason.
Leave it alone I would say anyway.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
08 Apr 2008 10:11 am Post subject:
|
|
I am not so worried about those nutty Right Wingers.
It's the propaganda spewed forth from them in which the Left has been
very lame to counter.
Mike wrote:
|
Quote:
|
|
I can
understand why it's difficult for some people to see what's happening.
It's not immediately obvious that, when X hands a paycheck to Y, then X
is actually robbing Y. The optical illusion has been assembled
carefully.
|
That's one of the big problems is that the idea of
being robbed more from the capitalist class than from the government
through taxation. I am no economist or math wiz but I am trying to find
the right words to open people's eyes and to show that socialism is about
liberty, justice, freedom, ect., which the Right Wing claims we violate
by being Socialists. Socialist are going to have to clarify their
direction.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
08 Apr 2008 04:38 pm Post subject:
|
|
Maybe you should write your own FAQ, then when you
argue with people you can give them the link to it.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
08 Apr 2008 06:51 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
Maybe you
should write your own FAQ, then when you argue with people you can give
them the link to it.
|
I've been thinking about that. My son will show me
how to construct my own web page. I never was interested in a personal
web page before but circumstances warrants it's creation.
John T.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
08 Apr 2008 07:27 pm Post subject:
|
|
You can even write a document in Microsoft Works or
Microsoft Word, and when you save it, select "save as file type
HTML". It takes only a minute to try it. Just open a wordprocessor,
type blah-blah, changes its font and color as a test, save the file as \folder-name\file-name.html,
then open a browser and instead of typing a web address type the file
name c:\folder-name\file-name.html . If it displays properly then you can
use a regular microsoft wordprocessor to create your document.
Or you can learn how to write the HTML tags
manually, which is what I do, but that takes time to learn it and also to
do it.
Then decide where you want to store the document
online. There are free sites available but they may have side-effects
such as advertising. Myself I could give you either a free subdomain with
a name like your-own-name.deleonism.org, or, if you want to get your own
domain name, I could give you free hosting for it.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
09 Apr 2008 10:32 pm Post subject:
|
|
It did work but I decided to deleted it because I need
to learn more about it and I want to write most of it and copy and paste
a few things before transforming it into an html.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
09 Apr 2008 11:06 pm Post subject:
|
|
Do you know the basic format of an HTML document? It
looks sort of like this:
<html>
<head>
<title>This is the title that appears in the
blue stripe at the top of the browser</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>this is a big header at the top of the
document</h1>
<p>this is a paragraph, where a paragraph is
defined as some typing that has the margins wrap around automatically,
and is separated by other paragraphs by a blank line</p>
<!-- this is a comment and has no effect, it
won't be visible in the browser -->
<p>here's another paragraph</p>
<p>and another paragraph</p>
</body>
</html>
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
10 Apr 2008 01:25 am Post subject:
|
|
I saved these instructions to Word to use later.
Thanks a whole lot. :D
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
10 Apr 2008 06:38 am Post subject:
|
|
Feel
free to ask about details when each need arises, like font family and size
and color, background color or background image, adding links, numbered
lists or bullet lists, or if you want some text to be centered, or text
in a box that floats to the left or right with other text wrapped around
it, or text that wraps around an image, or having several vertical
columns like in a newspaper, and all that stuff. Also: modifications that
cause google to give each page a higher search rank.
|
|
|