From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Fri Aug 17 2007 - 17:51:48 EDT
Jurrian: To replace money with labour-tokens (a form of rationing) is to regress to a more primitive, and less efficient allocation method in most cases. Much more advanced techniques of giving and receiving credit are possible nowadays. In Cap. Vol. 2, Marx distinguished between three great forms of economic allocation: natural economy, money economy and credit economy. Globally, we are increasingly moving towards credit economy now, as far as economic exchange is concerned. Credit economy is concerned with estimated future potential, specifically future earning power. --------------- Paul: Where exactly does Marx give that sequence of forms of economic allocation? Marx analyses money and credit in Capital II but this is exclusively in the context of a) precapitalist usurious credit b) commercial credit used to allow the function of productive capital Neither of these corresponds to a 'form of economic allocation' in your general sense The first is a specific pre-capitalist form of exploitation, the second a necessary outgrowth of the temporal structure of capitalist production. Marx does not address consumer credit, since, other than pawnshops, that did not exist in its modern form. It is only modern consumer credit that could correspond to what you call a form of economic allocation. If labour tokens are to be described as rationing you are using the term rationing in a very much more general sense than is normally used by economists, where it normally refers to each person being allowed a fixed quota or specific use values. Labour tokens are no more rationing in this sense than having a dollar income is rationing, since the holder of the labour tokens is free to spend them on any type of use value, and as such this choice is the antithesis of rationing. As I understand it Marx proposes labour tokens as a means of eliminating capitalist exploitation and defetishising economic relations. --- Jurrian: The point of a socialist or communist allocation system is not "equal exchange", but to ensure normal human needs are met efficiently for everybody, in a way that maximises liberty, justice and equality for everybody. For this purpose, a wide range of allocation principles can be used, most of which are already present in capitalist society, though possibly with more restricted applications, given the ruling property forms. Paul: Marx does not in the CGP advocate "equal exchange" he says "Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products;....the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another." He presents this form of allocation as being the first stage not of socialism but of COMMUNISM, saying that at a later stage distribution according to need will increasingly come into play. What, Jurrian, are the "wide range of allocation principles, most of which are already present in capitalist society", that you envisage applying in a communist economy? The characteristic allocation principles of a capitalist society are wages of labour, profit of capital, and rent of land - do you envisage these as being the allocation principles of communism too? Or do you mean things like free health care, invalidity benefits etc as developed in the mid 20th century by European countries with a Welfare State? If so, I would question your treating these as something which is already present in capitalist society. Many contemporary capitalist societies do not have these, they only existed where social democratic and communist movements fought for and won these things, and as such are not characteristic of capitalism but are premonitions of communism. Consistent advocates of capitalism try to eliminate these features whenever they have the political strength to do so. Paul Cockshott www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L on behalf of Jurriaan Bendien Sent: Thu 8/16/2007 9:52 PM To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: [OPE-L] A startling quotation from Engels Hi all, It's just that I think that in the Marx/Engels theory, the products of human labour have a "value", irrespective of whether they are sold or not sold, and it has evidently been like that, ever since human beings produced anything with their work. They have that value, simply because it takes a quantity of labour-time to make them or replace them. Otherwise, Engels's statement that commodities can be "depreciated below their value" in the trading process doesn't make sense. I obviously distinguish here between value and exchange-value. Morover, a product has that value, irrespective of its perceived utility. To replace money with labour-tokens (a form of rationing) is to regress to a more primitive, and less efficient allocation method in most cases. Much more advanced techniques of giving and receiving credit are possible nowadays. In Cap. Vol. 2, Marx distinguished between three great forms of economic allocation: natural economy, money economy and credit economy. Globally, we are increasingly moving towards credit economy now, as far as economic exchange is concerned. Credit economy is concerned with estimated future potential, specifically future earning power. The point of a socialist or communist allocation system is not "equal exchange", but to ensure normal human needs are met efficiently for everybody, in a way that maximises liberty, justice and equality for everybody. For this purpose, a wide range of allocation principles can be used, most of which are already present in capitalist society, though possibly with more restricted applications, given the ruling property forms. If the most human beings can imagine, is that they make the allocation of resources more "efficient" by privatising their ownership, then that's a serious impoverishment of economic thought. It is true only in some cases, but not all cases. It overlooks the main modern problem of capitalist regulation: the growing intermediation between the private ownership of an asset and its actual use, i.e. that private ownership in practice doesn't resolve much anymore, as regards the actual management of resource use. When I lived in New Zealand, the real estate millionaire Bob Jones frankly admitted this - he said (paraphrase) whether an asset is state-owned or privately owned does not necessarily imply anything about the efficiency or wisdom of its management. He supported privatisation only because then he could do more business, and make more money. He wanted a better society for capitalists, believing that this is better for everybody. We live in the "age of the manager", and the social ideal is, a manager who takes it upon himself to exercise "creative responsibility and stewardship" over a bunch of people and resources with due integrity. To be emancipated these days, is thus to be a manager. But point is, this manager may not privately own most, or even any, of the resources he takes responsibility for. His strength is only his personal capacity to relate, in a way that provides power. Consequently, the employee gets graded according to how well he is able to relate, vis-a-vis the goals of the manager, who tries to reshape the world and his employees after his own image. Part of the sickness of modern capitalist society, is precisely that the traditional close connection between private ownership of resources, and the responsibility for the use of those resources, has been broken. That is why you get woolly concepts such as "governance" - this means neither real government, nor real ownership, but an enforcable or voluntary contract pertaining to the use of resources by "stakeholders". But the very concept of a "stakeholding" refers to "any party which can affect, or is affected by, the activities of a company or institution" or who has a "legitimate interest" in it. A legitimate interest is primarily political, not necessarily legal. In law, a stakeholder is a third party who temporarily holds an asset "while its owner is still being determined". There you can already see, the ambiguities of modern private property. It is, as Marx suggested, "the socialization of property within capitalism". Jurriaan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 31 2007 - 00:00:10 EDT