Oops. I've been pressing the wrong "reply to" button and sending messages not to Pen-L but directly to Prof. Devine. It seems I get rusty on how to reply on a list when I don't use it for awhile! Since this is all continuation of the discussion on Pen-L, here it is:
From: Joseph Green <[email protected]> To: Jim Devine <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Ingo Elbe Between Marx, Marxism, and Marxisms, Part I.3 Date sent: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 23:52:37 -0400 Joseph Green: >> But in making these economic plans, the workers do have to quantify the >> means of production, although not by reducing everything to a single >> index, the amount of abstract labor. Prof. Devine: >if it's not a "single index," we're not disagreeing. Except that you deny every reference to keeping track of the needed amount of labor of various types. All the examples you gave were in the direction of saying that there is no way to calculate anything in a communist economy. In fact, economic calculation will still exist in communism. It will *not* be according to abstract labor-time, and it will not attempt to reduce everything to a single numerical scale. But there will be economic calculation. We live in capitalist society, and are involved in market relations all the time. These relationships come to seem normal. They make it appear that economic calculation must mean reducing everything to value (or some other single indice). But in fact there are other types of economic calculation. Capitalism will die, but economic calculation will continue. Calculation involves quantification. But you seem to make quantification into the criterion of capitalism. You denounce quantification by interpreting it as reducing everything to a single scale (such as abstract labor-hours). That's a mistake. That's only one way of quantification. There are other ways to carry out quantification. Then you say "if it's not a "single index," we're not disagreeing." Why, that's wonderful. So why then did you write paragraph after paragraph disagreeing with every reference I gave to the need to have economic calculation after capitalism? Devine: > > If labor-time and leisure-time are inextricably mixed, then the former > cannot be quantified. A certain product may require a certain amount of labor of one type, a certain amount of labor of another type, a certain amount of this raw material, a certain amount of that raw material, etc. That still remains the case after capitalism. So these amounts have to be "quantified". But these quantities should be kept separate, and not mixed together into a single "value". Some labor done may be paid, some may be volunteer labor. This would require keeping track both of the total amount of labor needed, and of how it breaks down into paid and volunteer labor. It is quite possible to do this. It's absurd to make a mystery out of it. >Any measure would be one of labor-and-leisure > time instead. By the way, this is not utopian: professionals (such as > myself) often mix labor and leisure, which is an important reason why > our bosses don't pay us by the hour. If you're talking about full communism, then none of the labor is being paid for. Instead the worker receives the necessary consumer goods simply because the worker is part of the society. And yet in communism, there still has to be economic calculation over what to produce, and to determine what can be produced. The needed amount of labor of various types is one of the important factors. If one is talking about a system where workers receive goods as compensation for their labor, then it is important to keep track of how much labor is needed, but also of how much will be volunteer labor and how much will be compensated labor. If it really were impossible to tell the difference between leisure (volunteer) labor and labor that is compensated, then it would be impossible to compensate workers for their labor. (It's also an important reason > why we academic types put up with salaries below those paid in > business.) Many people take satisfaction in their work (at least, until it is sped up to the point of injury, or otherwise ruined as capitalist exploitation deepens). That is a separate question of what they are compensated for. > > In any event, I think you agree that it's only in a > commodity-producing society that abstract labor-time can be measured. Really? There is a difference between what one can define and measure, and whether the result is of any use. It is quite possible to calculate the abstract labor-time in a system without money or commodities. All it takes to calculate abstract labor-time is to keep track of the average labor-time used in producing products; to keep track of the other inputs aside from labor; to set up a system of linear simultaneous equations; and to calculate. Paul Cockshott had already, long ago, carefully and painstakingly worked out a system for doing it. One might agree or disagree with the details of how he does it, and perhaps a rival economist might claim that a somewhat modified system would be better. But that's just a detail. The big question, however, is what is the signficance of the mathematical result obtained? Just because it's possible to do something, doesn't necessarily mean that it gives a useful or meaningful result. The abstract labor-time (or any single-indice) is an non-natural measure even under capitalism. That is one of the reasons why the carbon tax and other plans to set the "true price" or "true cost" of commodities are bound to fail. And the abstract labor-time (or any single indice) would still be non- natural in a non-market economy, but it could be calculated. In my three-part article "The labor-hour is *not* the natural unit of socialist calculation" (www.communistvoice.org/00LaborHour.html), I argued that, in fact, there isn't any single natural unit for economic calculation. I also took care to show that economic calculation can still exist without a single unit, a question you seem, in your answer to me, to be avoiding with one red herring after another. But if anyone wants to see what it could possibly mean to have economic calculation, without reducing anything to a single indice, they could look at my article. As a matter of fact, my articles also discuss the fact that Marx, in volume II of Capital, shows how to carry out economic calculation without reducing everything to a single indice. But he does use numbers, and so "quantification" is involved. > sold on the market). For example, within the context of our society, we > can quantify the amount of bubble-gum produced, but we can't measure the > benefits of the legal system, the environmental protection agency, and > other "public" goods, except for various academic exercises which differ > according to one's point of view. Yet oddly enough, you still have hopes in the carbon tax, which is based on the idea that pricing things at their "true cost" will save the environment. > It's only in > commodity relations that different products can be measured using the > same units (dollars and cents or values). And even then, we can No, that's not true. It is possible to measure a broad arrange of products in the same units. For instance, with the exception of services, products can be measured by their weight. This would be a non-natural and arbitrary measure of a product, but surely it is a possible measure. There's a difference between what one can do, and whether there's any point in doing it. > measure the amount of steel produced, but the measure of the amount of > pollution cost of steel can only be quantified given all sorts of > contentious assumptions which vary according to the scholar's point of > view. Indeed, and that's one of the arguments against the "carbon tax". However, the fact that it's hard to find any reasonable definition of the "pollution cost" doesn't mean that other measures couldn't be defined. That's an elementary mistake in logic. > > > It seems to me that this is another confusion between abstract and > > concrete labor. No doubt value, the amount of abstract labor, loses > > its significance. The law of value is ultimately the law of treating > > workers as mere objects. > > No, I don't make this confusion. Yes, you do. For example, while you say you are only arguing against abstract labor, you give arguments against any measures of labor-time at all. Why, you say, it's impossible to separate labor-time and leisure-time. > > > But the concrete labor needed to produce something remains of value. > > As Engels says with respect to socialism: "It is true that even then > > it will still be necessary for society to know how much labor each > > article of consumption requires for its production. It will have to > > arrange its plan of production in accordance with its means of > > production, which include, in particular, its labor forces." > > (Anti-Durhing, Part III, Chapter 4). > > Socialism is an intermediate stage, while I was talking about what it > was intermediate to, i.e., communism. Engels' argument applies to communism as well. > That was elided when you quoted > me above. (I referred to "hopefully to be abolished completely (with > communism).") The fact that you think the distinction between socialism and communism is important with regard to a question of taking account of the means of production suggests that you think that economic calculation comes to an end with communism. You seem to grant that, well, it might be OK for socialism, but not for communism. You imply that economic calculation is degrading for workers. > By the way, socialism would also involve planning the > utilization of the means of production. Looking at the allocation of > labor-time is necessary but not sufficient. Yes, and Engels said that in the passage I cited. I made a point of citing a pssage where he talks of looking at the use the "means of production, which include, in particular, its labor forces". I.e. the means of production also include other things besides the labor forces. But one of the the keky points here is that Engel's statement applies to communism as well as to socialism. There's economic calculation in communism. > > > And indeed, if there is to be any economic calculation in future > > society, the amount of labor of different types needed has to be > > known. If, for instance, there is to be a system of libraries, one > > needs to know the number of librarians, the number of computer > > technicians, the amount of buildings, and so on -- and if the > > buildings aren't built yet, the means of production needed to build > > the buildings, etc. Indeed, one needs to know, not just the number of > > librarians, the number of computer technicians, etc. but in what > > locations they are needed -- since workers are not going to be treated > > as mere inputs, one has to take account of whether workers will want > > to be there. And indeed, it is the workers themselves who will be > > making these plans and deciding what their communities are like. > > Workers couldn't decide that other criteria besides labor-time are > important? You don't bother reading the things you are seeking to refute, do you? In the above passage that you cite from me, I made a point of listing things besides the labor-time, including the issue of where the work will be done. I did this in order to emphasize that the labor-time was only ONE of the things that had to be kept track off. (And I further indicated that the labor-time of different types of work had to be kept separate track of. ) And you seek to refute this, saying, aren't other criteria aside from the labor-time important? Bravo, Prof Devine. How clever! Now, in fact, it isn't a matter that workers MIGHT decide that factors aside from abstract labor-time are important. If the workers were running an economy, they would HAVE to take account of factors other than abstract labor- time. Otherwise their economic calculations would come to grief. ====================================================== The above was a reply by me to the following from Jim Devine: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Jim Devine <[email protected]> To: Joseph Green <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Ingo Elbe Between Marx, Marxism, and Marxisms, Part I.3 Date sent: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:19:43 -0700 me: >> With socialism (and I don't mean the really-existing "socialism" of the >> now-defunct USSR), the point is to stop treating workers as mere >> objects and to allow us to be subjects in our collective creation of >> our history. ... The workers will likely not treat themselves as mere >> inputs to a production process. The dividing-line between labor and >> leisure will also be going away. The quantification of labor-time >> becomes impossible. > "The quantification of labor-time becomes impossible."? This is > ambiguous. Do you mean by "quantification of labor-time" reducing > everything to abstract labor? Or do you include measuring concrete labor > -- so much time devoted to brain surgery, so much time devoted to > steelwork, etc.? Those are two different things. And what about the > quantification of products? Are you saying reducing them to a single > measure is "impossible", or keeping track of them altogether is > impossible? If labor-time and leisure-time are inextricably mixed, then the former cannot be quantified. Any measure would be one of labor-and-leisure time instead. By the way, this is not utopian: professionals (such as myself) often mix labor and leisure, which is an important reason why our bosses don't pay us by the hour. (It's also an important reason why we academic types put up with salaries below those paid in business.) In any event, I think you agree that it's only in a commodity-producing society that abstract labor-time can be measured. With a labor/leisure split, concrete labor-time can be measured but different concrete labors can't be measured in the same units unless they produce commodities which are sold. Concrete amounts of time that are assigned to do labor (what's called "labor-power" under capitalism) can be measured, but different workers' "amounts" do not automatically equal each other. The actual amount of labor done during these periods differ, as does the quantity and quality of skill, experience, and motivation. Products can be quantified, both only the "private" ones (commodity sold on the market). For example, within the context of our society, we can quantify the amount of bubble-gum produced, but we can't measure the benefits of the legal system, the environmental protection agency, and other "public" goods, except for various academic exercises which differ according to one's point of view. It's only in commodity relations that different products can be measured using the same units (dollars and cents or values). And even then, we can measure the amount of steel produced, but the measure of the amount of pollution cost of steel can only be quantified given all sorts of contentious assumptions which vary according to the scholar's point of view. > It seems to me that this is another confusion between abstract and > concrete labor. No doubt value, the amount of abstract labor, loses its > significance. The law of value is ultimately the law of treating workers > as mere objects. No, I don't make this confusion. > But the concrete labor needed to produce something remains of value. As > Engels says with respect to socialism: "It is true that even then it > will still be necessary for society to know how much labor each article > of consumption requires for its production. It will have to arrange its > plan of production in accordance with its means of production, which > include, in particular, its labor forces." (Anti-Durhing, Part III, > Chapter 4). Socialism is an intermediate stage, while I was talking about what it was intermediate to, i.e., communism. That was elided when you quoted me above. (I referred to "hopefully to be abolished completely (with communism).") By the way, socialism would also involve planning the utilization of the means of production. Looking at the allocation of labor-time is necessary but not sufficient. > And indeed, if there is to be any economic calculation in future > society, the amount of labor of different types needed has to be known. > If, for instance, there is to be a system of libraries, one needs to > know the number of librarians, the number of computer technicians, the > amount of buildings, and so on -- and if the buildings aren't built yet, > the means of production needed to build the buildings, etc. Indeed, one > needs to know, not just the number of librarians, the number of computer > technicians, etc. but in what locations they are needed -- since workers > are not going to be treated as mere inputs, one has to take account of > whether workers will want to be there. And indeed, it is the workers > themselves who will be making these plans and deciding what their > communities are like. Workers couldn't decide that other criteria besides labor-time are important? > But in making these economic plans, the workers do have to quantify the > means of production, although not by reducing everything to a single > index, the amount of abstract labor. if it's not a "single index," we're not disagreeing. > And the it's not dehumanizing to realize that human > labor is one of the means of production. The only two alternatives > aren't value or no economic calculation at all. Avoiding dehumanization involves seeing each human not only as a means but as an end in themselves. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. =========================================== And that was a reply by Prof. Devine to the following from me: From: Joseph Green <[email protected]> To: Jim Devine <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Ingo Elbe Between Marx, Marxism, and Marxisms, Part I.3 Date sent: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:23:37 -0400 Jim Devine wrote: > > With socialism (and I don't mean the really-existing "socialism" of the > now-defunct USSR), the point is to stop treating workers as mere objects > and to allow us to be subjects in our collective creation of our > history. ... The workers will likely not treat themselves as mere > inputs to a production process. The dividing-line between labor and > leisure will also be going away. The quantification of labor-time > becomes impossible. -- "The quantification of labor-time becomes impossible."? This is ambiguous. Do you mean by "quantification of labor-time" reducing everything to abstract labor? Or do you include measuring concrete labor -- so much time devoted to brain surgery, so much time devoted to steelwork, etc.? Those are two different things. And what about the quantification of products? Are you saying reducing them to a single measure is "impossible", or keeping track of them altogether is impossible? It seems to me that this is another confusion between abstract and concrete labor. No doubt value, the amount of abstract labor, loses its significance. The law of value is ultimately the law of treating workers as mere objects. But the concrete labor needed to produce something remains of value. As Engels says with respect to socialism: "It is true that even then it will still be necessary for society to know how much labor each article of consumption requires for its production. It will have to arrange its plan of production in accordance with its means of production, which include, in particular, its labor forces." (Anti-Durhing, Part III, Chapter 4). And indeed, if there is to be any economic calculation in future society, the amount of labor of different types needed has to be known. If, for instance, there is to be a system of libraries, one needs to know the number of librarians, the number of computer technicians, the amount of buildings, and so on -- and if the buildings aren't built yet, the means of production needed to build the buildings, etc. Indeed, one needs to know, not just the number of librarians, the number of computer technicians, etc. but in what locations they are needed -- since workers are not going to be treated as mere inputs, one has to take account of whether workers will want to be there. And indeed, it is the workers themselves who will be making these plans and deciding what their communities are like. But in making these economic plans, the workers do have to quantify the means of production, although not by reducing everything to a single index, the amount of abstract labor. And the it's not dehumanizing to realize that human labor is one of the means of production. The only two alternatives aren't value or no economic calculation at all. -- Joseph Green [email protected] _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
