# Why We Need Communism: Tent City University Lunchtime Meeting, 11 April



## Alfredo (Mar 30, 2012)

*Why we need communism*


*Lunchtime meeting at **Tent **City **University**, **Finsbury Square**, **London** EC2 *

*Wednesday 11 April, 2012**, **1pm -3pm*
Introduced by Alan Ward, author of the book _Communism is not just a nice idea, _published by the International Communist Current

We need communism - not the state capitalist nightmare of Stalinism but a global human community without states, markets or money – because:
-capitalism, as a world-wide system of production, can offer us no future except crisis, war and ecological catastrophe

-this system cannot be reformed or made more ‘democratic’

-at the same time, the possibility of producing and living for our real needs already exists

Come and discuss why we need a completely new society and how we can get there


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 31, 2012)

I often wonder why meetings regarding a better future for the working class tend to happen when a lot of the working class are at work.


----------



## Alfredo (Mar 31, 2012)

The reason I agreed to give this talk at lunchtime was that the organisers of Tent City told me that these sessions are often attended by people who work in neighbouring banks and such. Actually the person I spoke to called them 'bankers' when we first spoke but she really meant bank workers.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 31, 2012)

Sorry, wasn't having a pop at you, more a general point. Same as protests. I know the best time to protest is to dispute things in business hours, but it does kind of isolate people who would like to get involved but are working those hours.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 31, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> <snip>I know the best time to protest is to dispute things in business hours, but it does kind of isolate people who would like to get involved but are working those hours.


Word.


----------



## Alfredo (Apr 10, 2012)

this is tomorrow


----------



## Alfredo (Apr 12, 2012)

Non-event. Perhaps most of the energy of the occupation is being directed towards the protest at Leyton Marsh against the planned building of another Olympic facility, but Finsbury Square felt like a spiritless place, a far cry from the heady days of the occupation in the summer. I had agreed to do this talk because the organisers had contacted me and said they were having a series of lively lunchtime meetings. But I should have been warned by the fact that on the occupation website there was no evidence of any publicity for the event, or anything else on the Calendar except 'general assemblies'. When I got to the site with a couple of other comrades, there were very few people about and no one seemed to know what was going on, and when I said the meeting was about communism I got the reply, more than once, that 'not many here would be up for that'. So after waiting for a while we left for the anarchist bookshop in Whitechapel. Should have checked the website - that was closed. So to avoid a total washout, we went to the Kusama exhibition at the Tate Modern for a bit of semi-surrealist art appreciation, carefully avoiding the Damien Hirst show.


----------



## camouflage (Apr 12, 2012)

Alfredo said:


> a global human community without states, markets or money...


 
You may as well say we should do away with human beings having conversations or using words.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 12, 2012)

camouflage said:


> You may as well say we should do away with human beings having conversations or using words.


 
Yes. In a world where 'money' means 'talking' and 'markets' means 'human interaction'. You might live in such a word, but most of us don't.

To the OP:

I can't help but think of this as being deliberately provocative rather than a genuine attempt to address the problems of wealth distribution and the inherently absurd nature of fiat currency. Communism? Really? You willingly identify with a term associated with torture, genocide, mass-starvation and naked imperialism? I know that these things are not necessarily implied by communism, but you must surely be able to see the inference that most will draw?

Stop showboating and do some thinking. Then, when you've thought of some good ideas, go and make them happen.

EDIT: Clarified to whom the second part of the post is addressed


----------



## camouflage (Apr 12, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> Yes. In a world where 'money' means 'talking' and 'markets' means 'human interaction'. You might live in such a word, but most of us don't.


 
A market is an exchange space, money is a means by which values are symbolized, compared, stored and swapped. Human beings have many ways of doing such things, money and markets are just part of that.

Doesn't mean to lie, cheat, bullshit and steal is the point of life though.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 12, 2012)

camouflage said:


> A markets is an exchange space, money is a means by which values are compared, stored and exchanges facilitated. Human beings have many ways of doing such things, money and markets are just part of that.
> 
> Doesn't mean to lie, cheat, bullshit and steal is the point of life though.


 
Are you saying that fiat currency and the nation state are intrinsic human functions and values, like language?


----------



## camouflage (Apr 12, 2012)

Humans live in social groups and these organize themselves in different ways that tend toward the same general form. If you can think of a way to organize populations of millions (or even billions) of inter-dependent humans in a way that doesn't look like a 'nation state', then please present it to the group.

And yes, as humans we exchange all sorts of things (and non-things) in all sorts of different ways. We have words and symbols and protocols and traditions to negotiate with each other as to the various values we wish to exchange, both as individuals or as groups. Is this aspect of human behavior in your view inherently bad and wrong?

By the way all this 'fiat' stuff is bollocks, to my mind it adds nothing to the conversation, so I don't buy it.


----------



## love detective (Apr 12, 2012)

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with markets or money. There's nothing inherently capitalist about them although obviously within a system of capitalist social relations they become disciplined by, and subordinate to, the logic of capital. And therefore become vehicles for the inner tendencies of capital to manifest and express themselves in - but this comes from the capital relation, not money or markets in and off themselves.

i'd rather keep the 'state, markets and money' and get rid of wage labour/exploitation of labour, as it's the later that enables the former to be so destructively corrosive of humanity. Without the ability for capital to extract surplus value from labour and to create the inequalities that it does then things like money & markets would become relatively benign and lose the power that they have within capitalist social relations

I'd also go as far as to say that there could even be a positive role to play by some form of market mechanisms in relation to a system of economic democracy


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 12, 2012)

Fiat currency


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 12, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Fiat currency


 
But we do have fiat currency


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 12, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> But we do have fiat currency


I was raising my eyebrows cos IME, people who go on about fiat currency are either conspiraloons or free market "libertarian" types.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 12, 2012)

camouflage said:


> By the way all this 'fiat' stuff is bollocks, to my mind it adds nothing to the conversation, so I don't buy it.


 
You don't see the difference between a thing that has intrinsic value and a thing that has value only because we are told that it does? Or are you saying that you're ignoring the bits of my posts that you don't understand or can't be bothered to reply to?

Shall we just give up now? I'm actually serious about this. If you're going to pull that shit, I can't be bothered with you.


----------



## love detective (Apr 12, 2012)

nothing has intrinsic value - both use values and exchange values are relational concepts and without that relation they are not off value

the essence of the use value or exchange value of an item is to be found in human beings, rather than actually in the item/thing in and off itself


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 12, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I was raising my eyebrows cos IME, people who go on about fiat currency are either conspiraloons or free market "libertarian" types.


 
But the poster was also criticising the view of markets part of natural human social relations so I doubt it's the latter. I think it was just a way of responding to, and criticising, the idea that markets and money are somehow part of nature (fiat currency being just another word for modern money). There's a danger that we could become left wing McCarthyites with this kind of stuff, with secret conspiraloons and right wingers replacing reds under the bed.


----------



## camouflage (Apr 12, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> You don't see the difference between a thing that has intrinsic value and a thing that has value only because we are told that it does? Or are you saying that you're ignoring the bits of my posts that you don't understand or can't be bothered to reply to?
> 
> Shall we just give up now? I'm actually serious about this. If you're going to pull that shit, I can't be bothered with you.


 
'intrinsic value'... really?

Like this stuff I suppose...


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 12, 2012)

love detective said:


> nothing has intrinsic value - both use values and exchange values are relational concepts and without that relation they are not off value
> 
> the essence of the use value or exchange value of an item is to be found in human beings, rather than actually in the item/thing in and off itself


 
Potatoes have intrinsic value. Beef has intrinsic value. Gold does not.

Do you understand now?


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 12, 2012)

camouflage said:


> 'intrinsic value'... really?
> 
> Like this stuff I suppose...


 
No, like beef, potatoes and oil. Do you really not understand this?


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 12, 2012)

And no, I would never describe myself as a libertarian. It is important, however, to have an understanding of value.


----------



## love detective (Apr 12, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> Potatoes have intrinsic value. Beef has intrinsic value. Gold does not.
> 
> Do you understand now?


 
potatoes (or any other food or any other object of 'utility') don't have intrinsic value - if human's (or other potato eating animals) didn't exist and weren't around to eat them - would potatoes have value? Does a mobile phone have intrinsic value in a society with no electricity and no communications network? Does gruel have intrinsic value in a world that can feed its population more nourishing things? Does a car have intrinsic value in a world without the means to power it?

No of course they don't because they only have value when brought into relation with something else - hence the simple statement that nothing has intrinsic value off and in itself - value is relational, the essence of that value is not to be found in the object, but in the relation between the object and something else - hence nothing intrinsically has value other than relations between things or relations people people

Do you understand now?


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 12, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> Potatoes have intrinsic value. Beef has intrinsic value. Gold does not.
> 
> Do you understand now?


Not if you have a surfeit of beef and potatoes.


----------



## camouflage (Apr 12, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> Potatoes have intrinsic value. Beef has intrinsic value. Gold does not.
> 
> Do you understand now?


 
And Pork... Pork has intrinsic value provided you don't live in Riyadh, at which time it becomes un-intinsicated of value. Er... yeah, must be.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 12, 2012)

love detective said:


> potatoes (or any other food or any other object of 'utility') don't have intrinsic value - if human's (or other potato eating animals) didn't exist and weren't around to eat them - would potatoes have value? No of course they wouldn't because they only have value when brought into relation with something else - hence the simple statement that nothing has intrinsic value off and in itself - value is relational, the essence of that value is not to be found in the object, but in the relation between the object and something else - hence nothing intrinsically has value other than relations between things or relations people people
> 
> Do you understand now?


 
I'm sorry, I didn't realise we had to explicitly state to which species potatoes have intrinsic value. Just to be sure: if I don't say otherwise, assume I'm talking about humans.

Have you constructed a system of economics that excludes humans and other mammals?


----------



## love detective (Apr 12, 2012)

Does a mobile phone have intrinsic value in a society with no electricity and no communications network?

Does gruel have intrinsic value in a world that can feed its population more nourishing things and therefore no need for it?

Does a car have intrinsic value in a world without the means to power it?

Can you see a pattern developing here around relations between people & things that makes a nonsense out of your claim that things have intrinsic value in and off themselves?


----------



## magneze (Apr 12, 2012)

*intrinsic*

[in-*trin*-sik, -zik]    Origin​*in·trin·sic*

   [in-*trin*-sik, -zik] Show IPA
_*adjective*_
*1.*​belonging to a thing by its very nature: _the intrinsic value of agold ring._​*2.*​_Anatomy _. (of certain muscles, nerves, etc.) belonging to orlying within a given part.​​​


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 12, 2012)

magneze said:


> *intrinsic*​​ [in-*trin*-sik, -zik]   Origin​​*in·trin·sic*​​   [in-*trin*-sik, -zik] Show IPA​_*adjective*_​​*1.*​
> belonging to a thing by its very nature: _the intrinsic value of agold ring._​
> ​*2.*​
> _Anatomy _. (of certain muscles, nerves, etc.) belonging to orlying within a given part.​


 
A dictionary definition. How...quaint.

If you actually want to understand this, I recommend that you read When Money Dies.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 12, 2012)

love detective said:


> Does a mobile phone have intrinsic value in a society with no electricity and no communications network?
> 
> Does gruel have intrinsic value in a world that can feed its population more nourishing things and therefore no need for it?
> 
> ...


 
You're simply proving my point.


----------



## love detective (Apr 12, 2012)

if your 'point' is one which is diametrically opposed to the one you made earlier then I would be yes


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 12, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> You're simply proving my point.



If your 'point' is that you're coming across like a patronising prick, i believe it was proven a couple of posts ago.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 12, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> A dictionary definition. How...quaint.
> 
> If you actually want to understand this, I recommend that you read When Money Dies.



I'd recommend you read Marx.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 12, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I'd recommend you read Marx.


 
If reading Marx was going to do anyone any good it would have done so by now.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 12, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> If your 'point' is that you're coming across like a patronising prick, i believe it was proven a couple of posts ago.


 
Aww, how adorable. Personal attacks.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 12, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> If reading Marx was going to do anyone any good it would have done so by now.


Eh?


----------



## camouflage (Apr 12, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> Aww, how adorable. Personal attacks.


 
*patronizing* present participle of pa·tron·ize (Verb)

Verb: Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.​


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 13, 2012)

The calorific and nutritional value of potatoes is only made real in relation to other sources of calories and and nutrition; just as the communicative value of a mobile phone is only made real in relation to other methods of communication. Love detective is right, we make value. Rogue Leader is trying to dream a way out of our current mess, by wishing to subordinate our actions to some other naturally determined order where potatoes are intrinsically 'better' than gold.

It is precisely the central position of human actions that makes communism such an attractive idea; a free association, the objects of which are to encourage the development and utilisation of our abilities (both individual and social) to identify and meet our needs (again both individual and social). The only qualification for entry to the free association being our mutually recognised, our shared humanity.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 13, 2012)

We need potatoes and gold.


----------



## rekil (Apr 13, 2012)

I have a potato, but the nearest thing to gold I have is a fun size crunchie.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 13, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> It is precisely the central position of human actions that makes communism such an attractive idea; a free association, the objects of which are to encourage the development and utilisation of our abilities (both individual and social) to identify and meet our needs (again both individual and social). The only qualification for entry to the free association being our mutually recognised, our shared humanity.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
Wow. That's an astoundingly meaningless pile of bollocks. I'm impressed.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 13, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> Wow. That's an astoundingly meaningless pile of bollocks. I'm impressed.


It would be great if you could argue your point?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 13, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> Wow. That's an astoundingly meaningless pile of bollocks. I'm impressed.


 
Fair enough if you don't understand it, just admit. However you have simply resorted to personal insults, which means you've lost the argument imo.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 13, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> It would be great if you could argue your point?


 

Ok, perhaps you could explain what the difference is between 




> _a free association, the objects of which are to encourage the development and utilisation of our abilities (both individual and social) to identify and meet our needs (again both individual and social). The only qualification for entry to the free association being our mutually recognised, our shared humanity._




and libertarian fundamentalist free market libertarianism?


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 13, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> It is precisely the central position of human actions that makes communism such an attractive idea; a free association, the objects of which are to encourage the development and utilisation of our abilities (both individual and social) to identify and meet our needs (again both individual and social). The only qualification for entry to the free association being our mutually recognised, our shared humanity.


 
It is precisely this sort of emotive, sub-romantic gushing that puts so many people off becoming communists.

(It's that repetition of "our" in the last sentence that really grates... unbearable)


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 13, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> Ok, perhaps you could explain what the difference is between
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Maybe, if you could explain what "libertarian fundamentalist free market libertarianism" is.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> potatoes (or any other food or any other object of 'utility') don't have intrinsic value - if human's (or other potato eating animals) didn't exist and weren't around to eat them - would potatoes have value? Does a mobile phone have intrinsic value in a society with no electricity and no communications network? Does gruel have intrinsic value in a world that can feed its population more nourishing things? Does a car have intrinsic value in a world without the means to power it?
> 
> No of course they don't because they only have value when brought into relation with something else - hence the simple statement that nothing has intrinsic value off and in itself - value is relational, the essence of that value is not to be found in the object, but in the relation between the object and something else - hence nothing intrinsically has value other than relations between things or relations people people


 
I believe RL was alluding to the distinction between use-value and exchange-value.

While obviously nothing has value apart from human beings, that does not mean that nothing has inherent value.  All use-values inhere in their objects, and the physical presence of the object is required for its use-value to be realized.

But as RL rightly says, exchange-value is immaterial and relational only.  If you try to say the same of use-value, the distinction between them evaporates.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> Does a mobile phone have intrinsic value in a society with no electricity and no communications network?
> 
> Does gruel have intrinsic value in a world that can feed its population more nourishing things and therefore no need for it?
> 
> ...


 

I am amazed that you have the intellectual sophistication to engage in socio-economic debate at this level and yet seem to be incapable of seeing the difference between things that have value in and of themselves and things that have value _only_ as a medium of exchange.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 13, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Maybe, if you could explain what "libertarian fundamentalist free market libertarianism" is.


 
It's most magnanimous of you not to exploit that meaningless typo that I made. After all, concentrating on a simple error by someone in a hurry might betray the intellectual bankruptcy of your position.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 13, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> I am amazed that you have the intellectual sophistication to engage in socio-economic debate at this level and yet seem to be incapable of seeing the difference between things that have value in and of themselves and things that have value _only_ as a medium of exchange.


Things don't have value "in and if themselves", as has been pointed out. If you disagree with what has been said, argue why.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 13, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> It's most magnanimous of you not to exploit that meaningless typo that I made. After all, concentrating on a simple error by someone in a hurry might betray the intellectual bankruptcy of your position.


I take it from that, that you don't know what you mean.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 13, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Things don't have value "in and if themselves", as has been pointed out. If you disagree with what has been said, argue why.


 
I think the distinction between consumable commodities and exchange units is quite clear. I'm really not sure what it is you don't understand.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 13, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I take it from that, that you don't know what you mean.


 
Oh, right. You actually don't know what libertarianism is?


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 13, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> I think the distinction between consumable commodities and exchange units is quite clear. I'm really not sure what it is you don't understand.



I'm asking you to respond to the points made to you.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 13, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I'm asking you to respond to the points made to you.


 
If you believe there are points that I haven't answered, I'm sure you'll be delighted to remind me.

This is why the left is fucked. Far too busy trying to score points off each other.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 13, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> Oh, right. You actually don't know what libertarianism is?


Again - I'm asking you to explain what you mean by "fundamentalist free market libertarianism".

I know what I meant when I referred to free market libertarian types. I'm guessing you mean that? The main difference would be attitudes to private property (i.e. means of production) and wage labour.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 13, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> If you believe there are points that I haven't answered, I'm sure you'll be delighted to remind me.
> 
> This is why the left is fucked. Far too busy trying to score points off each other.


You haven't responded to any points put to you as far as I can see.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 13, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Again - I'm asking you to explain what you mean by "fundamentalist free market libertarianism".
> 
> I know what I meant when I referred to free market libertarian types. I'm guessing you mean that? The main difference would be attitudes to private property (i.e. means of production) and wage labour.


 
Can we just refer to 'free marketeers' from now on? I'm a bit weary of typing it out every time.

I'm referring to people who believe that there should be no regulation of industry whatsoever and that individuals are free to conduct themselves as they see fit without fear of state censure. By extension, this means that the free marketeer is free to develop his or her own skills which might or might not be exchangeable for the necessities of life.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 13, 2012)

Yes? And?

In that scenario what about people who don't own property?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 13, 2012)

Where's revol68 he would be a useful addition at this stage?


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 13, 2012)

I'm still curious as to how beef and potatoes have intrinsic value.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 13, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Yes? And?
> 
> In that scenario what about people who don't own property?


 
I'm not a free marketeer, but I suspect that people who don't own property would be in very much the same position that they're in today.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 13, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I'm still curious as to how beef and potatoes have intrinsic value.


 
I'm amazed that rich people don't pay much tax.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 13, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> I'm not a free marketeer, but I suspect that people who don't own property would be in very much the same position that they're in today.


So there's yer answer.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 13, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> I'm amazed that rich people don't pay much tax.


George? Is that you? Would explain a lot!


----------



## sunnysidedown (Apr 13, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> the necessities of life.


 
the simple bare necessities?


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 13, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> George? Is that you? Would explain a lot!


 
Do you actually think I'm right wing because I don't agree with a half-baked description of an ideology associated with anti-semitism, deliberate starvation, torture and murder? You haven't explained this economic philosophy in any sort of detail at all. The only description I've seen so far is a vague, purple rhetoric which could be applied to any theory of economy in history, including monetarism and fascism.

I'm afraid you haven't been very convincing.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 13, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> Do you actually think I'm right wing because I don't agree with a half-baked description of an ideology associated with anti-semitism, deliberate starvation, torture and murder? You haven't explained this economic philosophy in any sort of detail at all. The only description I've seen so far is a vague, purple rhetoric which could be applied to any theory of economy in history.
> 
> I'm afraid you haven't been very convincing.



I'm still waiting for an explanation of how potatoes and beef have intrinsic value.

Merely stating it is not very convincing.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 13, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I'm still curious as to how beef and potatoes have intrinsic value.


 
Eat them and you'll see.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 13, 2012)

I'm not the one attempting to explain an economic philosophy btw, that appears to be you.


----------



## ayatollah (Apr 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with markets or money. There's nothing inherently capitalist about them although obviously within a system of capitalist social relations they become disciplined by, and subordinate to, the logic of capital. And therefore become vehicles for the inner tendencies of capital to manifest and express themselves in - but this comes from the capital relation, not money or markets in and off themselves.
> 
> i'd rather keep the 'state, markets and money' and get rid of wage labour/exploitation of labour, as it's the later that enables the former to be so destructively corrosive of humanity. Without the ability for capital to extract surplus value from labour and to create the inequalities that it does then things like money & markets would become relatively benign and lose the power that they have within capitalist social relations
> 
> I'd also go as far as to say that there could even be a positive role to play by some form of market mechanisms in relation to a system of economic democracy


 
Some interesting issues here . I too , as a socialist though, can see a function for some "market mechanisms"  in a non exploitative social system, to deliver flexibility and innovation  to an economic system . But as I said, For me that overall system would be a socialist one , in which the key , large, industries were socially owned and controlled - and money circulation to provide for resource allocation flexibility was handled by state owned banks, within a system of overall , flexible PLANNING. For the overall system to be  "non-exploitative" however requires that there is no classical OR state "capitalist class" in the picture, with power derived from ownership and control of great blocks of capital, ie, that the state is a democratically run "worker's state", after the capitalist class has been expropriated. 

Without a socialist state form  under workers control , shaping and limiting market relations and capital accumulation, how can any free"market" situation in which there are  EMPLOYERS and EMPLOYEES, avoid a situation where surplus value is extracted , to the benefit of the employer.. the CAPITALIST ? I would suggest there IS something intrinsically "capitalistic" about , non-barter-based, markets ,and money use - even when operating in a feudal or slave based system . In a modern economy the very existence of a very highly developed division of labour, with complex markets and money mechanisms , and the existence of  employer and employed establishes automatically both "capitalism" and EXPLOITATION, without a bigger societal framework of social ownership and control.

So how do you propose to "keep the 'state, markets and money' and get rid of wage labour/exploitation of labour," in terms of the bigger social framework ? Without this clearly explained bigger picture your  "non-exploitative market"  is highly reminiscent of William Morris type utopianism common during the early years of capitalist development - which of course proved no solution to capitalist exploitation at all.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 13, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> I'm not the one attempting to explain an economic philosophy btw, that appears to be you.


 
The title of this thread is "Why we need communism". Are you in agreement with the premise of this statement?


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 13, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Eat them and you'll see.



Breaking my ignoring of you for a moment -

And if I have a surfeit of potatoes and don't want to eat them and can't give them away?

Which is entirely the point - they only have a value in particular circumstances. This is basic Marx. Another reason I think you're a troll/fraud.


----------



## biggus dickus (Apr 13, 2012)

getting things done


----------



## biggus dickus (Apr 13, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> The title of this thread is "Why we need communism". Are you in agreement with the premise of this statement?


 
it should be 'why we need girlfriends'


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 13, 2012)

biggus dickus said:


> it should be 'why we need girlfriends'


 


Post of the day.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Apr 13, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> PLANNING.


 
I can smell the formica & misery from here.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 13, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> The title of this thread is "Why we need communism". Are you in agreement with the premise of this statement?


Did I start this thread?


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 13, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Breaking my ignoring of you for a moment -
> 
> And if I have a surfeit of potatoes and don't want to eat them and can't give them away?
> 
> Which is entirely the point - they only have a value in particular circumstances.


 
No.  They have use-value in themselves, inherently.  They have exchange-value when they are exchanged for something else.

This isn't very difficult to grasp.


----------



## ayatollah (Apr 13, 2012)

sunnysidedown said:


> I can smell the formica & misery from here.


 
Well you've certainly crushed THAT argument with your closely argued and knowledgable polemic sonny. Next a 10 word demolition of the theory of Relativity ? You are a master of debate indeedy.


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 13, 2012)

biggus dickus said:


> it should be 'why we need girlfriends'


 
**


----------



## love detective (Apr 13, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I believe RL was alluding to the distinction between use-value and exchange-value.


 
I know what he was alluding to, however he was using the wrong thing to try and make the distinction

No more is the essence of a use value found in an object in and off itself, as the essence of (exchange) value is found within a commodity

As has been stated previously both use value & exchange value are relational concepts - the exchange value/use value lies within the relation between people/things, not within things in and off themselves




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> All use-values inhere in their objects, and the physical presence of the object is required for its use-value to be realized.


 
This may be your view and you are of course entitled to it, however it's not one I adhere to, and i'm afraid once again Marx would side with me rather than you on this one - as he clearly sees the concept of use value as a relational one (just like exchange value) and also one that is not necessarily material. Here's a range of quotes from him on the topic spread across a number of his works:-




			
				poverty of philosophy said:
			
		

> The estimation of our needs may change; *therefore the utility of things, which expresses only the relation of these things to our needs*, may also change


 



			
				poverty of philosophy said:
			
		

> The product supplied is not useful in itself. It is the consumer who determines its utility


 



			
				grundrisse said:
			
		

> use value may be purely imaginary


 



			
				capital vol 1 said:
			
		

> The commodity is first of all..a thing which through its qualities satisfies human needs of whatever kind. The nature of these needs, whether they arise, for example, from the stomach, or the imagination, makes no difference.


 



			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> But as RL rightly says, exchange-value is immaterial and relational only. If you try to say the same of use-value, the distinction between them evaporates.


 
The first sentence is correct and there is no argument between anyone on this - the second is incorrect however. It is too a relational concept, one where the utility lies in the relation between things, not within the thing itself. And it is also not necessary a material one as you imply above. Love for example has utility for most people but can i kick it?


----------



## love detective (Apr 13, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Eat them and you'll see.


 
eating a potato no more shows that the essence of its utility lies within a thing in and off itself, than spending a tenner in a shop and getting something you want for it shows that the essence of value lies within money in and off itself

your reply about having to eat it though actually makes the point i've been making all along which is that use value, just like exchange value, is a relational concept - the essence of a use value is found in the relation between things/people not in a thing in and off itself


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> Love for example has utility for most people but can i kick it?


 
I bloody wish I could.

Obviously use-values are only useful for people, and in that sense I suppose you could say that they are "relational."  But unlike exchange-value, use-values are not relational with regard to other values.  The use-value of an object most certainly is inherent in the object.  Indeed the physical presence of the object is necessary for its use-value to be realized.  You cannot use anything unless it is present.

Exchange-value, in contrast, is produced by the _absence _of the valued object.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 13, 2012)

> eating a potato no more shows that the essence of its utility lies within a thing in and off itself, than spending a tenner in a shop and getting something you want for it shows that the essence of value lies within money in and off itself


 
Food and water don't depend on the presence of a second or third party for their value.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> eating a potato no more shows that the essence of its utility lies within a thing in and off itself, than spending a tenner in a shop and getting something you want for it shows that the essence of value lies within money in and off itself


 
Spending money in the shop shows that the _use-_value of the money lies within it, as all use-values do.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 13, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> No.  They have use-value in themselves, inherently.  They have exchange-value when they are exchanged for something else.
> 
> This isn't very difficult to grasp.


Except they don't have use value in and of themselves. If I don't want potatoes, they have no use value to me.


----------



## magneze (Apr 13, 2012)

0/10

Read the definition of intrinsic again.

All you're both doing (R_L & pd) is proving that value is relational. It's funny really.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> can i kick it?



Yes you can, being the obvious answer.


----------



## love detective (Apr 13, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Some interesting issues here . I too , as a socialist though, can see a function for some "market mechanisms" in a non exploitative social system, to deliver flexibility and innovation to an economic system . But as I said, For me that overall system would be a socialist one , in which the key , large, industries were socially owned and controlled - and money circulation to provide for resource allocation flexibility was handled by state owned banks, within a system of overall , flexible PLANNING. For the overall system to be "non-exploitative" however requires that there is no classical OR state "capitalist class" in the picture, with power derived from ownership and control of great blocks of capital, ie, that the state is a democratically run "worker's state", after the capitalist class has been expropriated.
> 
> Without a socialist state form under workers control , shaping and limiting market relations and capital accumulation, how can any free"market" situation in which there are EMPLOYERS and EMPLOYEES, avoid a situation where surplus value is extracted , to the benefit of the employer.. the CAPITALIST ? I would suggest there IS something intrinsically "capitalistic" about , non-barter-based, markets ,and money use - even when operating in a feudal or slave based system . In a modern economy the very existence of a very highly developed division of labour, with complex markets and money mechanisms , and the existence of employer and employed establishes automatically both "capitalism" and EXPLOITATION, without a bigger societal framework of social ownership and control.
> 
> So how do you propose to "keep the 'state, markets and money' and get rid of wage labour/exploitation of labour," in terms of the bigger social framework ? Without this clearly explained bigger picture your "non-exploitative market" is highly reminiscent of William Morris type utopianism common during the early years of capitalist development - which of course proved no solution to capitalist exploitation at all.


 
Kind of odd response to my post if you don't mind me saying, your making a number of assumptions about me and my politics that my post does not give any suggestion of or rational for you to do so.

In the post that you replied to, my main point was that the exploitation of labour is the essential feature of not just capitalist society, but any exploitative society. So number one priority for those who don't want to live in a society based on exploitation of others is to obliterate the social relations on which that exploitation rests, in this particular society, a capitalist one, that means the wage-labour/capital relation. So not sure how you portray me as (implicitly) wanting to have some kind of exploitative society when the main point of my post was to posit the need to get rid of the essence of exploitative society in general

And I don't propose to keep the state, markets & money. My point made in the post you replied to, is that the OP contained a statement that communism could be defined by a 'world without states, markets and money'. My point is that getting rid of these things, but still having a society based on the exploitation of labour is a lot less communistic that one which retained some kind of system of money & markets but did not have as its essential feature, the exploitation of labour. If exploitation of labour (in any form, whether through forced labour or wage labour) does not exist, then things like money & markets lose the power that they have under a system of exploitation, and as I said would be relatively benign and in some cases even useful to a system of economic democracy, a point you agree with yourself

And for those who claim that there is something inherently capitalistic about money & markets, in and off themselves - they need to explain why money & markets have existed for thousands and thousands of years without producing a capitalist society - if they are so inherently capitalistic why didn't they produce capitalism back then when they themselves were born? True they existed in the framework of other exploitative societies (feudal, slave etc..) but that doesn't make them inherently capitalistic. These things, ripped fom the exploitative relations that give them power would become benign and similar to genteel car boot sales and selling CD's of Italian dogs barking on ebay


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 13, 2012)

magneze said:


> 0/10
> 
> Read the definition of intrinsic again.
> 
> All you're both doing (R_L & pd) is proving that value is relational. It's funny really.


 
It's relational with regard _to human beings.  _That's so obvious that it goes without saying. 

The point however is that use-value, unlike exchange-value, is not relational _to other values.  _Use-values are inherent in and inseparable from their objects.

Try eating a potato without having a physical potato in your possession.  Can't be done.


----------



## love detective (Apr 13, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Obviously use-values are only useful for people, and in that sense I suppose you could say that they are "relational." But unlike exchange-value, use-values are not relational with regard to other values. The use-value of an object most certainly is inherent in the object. Indeed the physical presence of the object is necessary for its use-value to be realized. You cannot use anything unless it is present.
> 
> Exchange-value, in contrast, is produced by the _absence _of the valued object.


 
it's not just about the relation between people though, it's much wider than that - and it is just as much about the relational aspect of use values to other use values

what is the use value of a mobile phone (i.e. just a straight phone that does nothing else other than make/take calls) in a society that doesn't have a mobile phone network? It's no use at all. However your proposition is that the essence of a use value lies within the object in and off itself. However i'm sure you would agree a mobile phone in one society that has a communication network is a use value, but the same mobile phone in another society that does not have a communication network is not a use value. Now i'm sure you agree with this statement, but your premise/argument about use values being inherent in the thing in and off itself, would not allow you to agree with this as you say the use value of the mobile phone lies within the mobile phone in and off itself (and deny the relation aspect). So your premise/argument would lead you to argue that a mobile phone in a society without a mobile phone network is still a use value. I need to ask what is it useful for and to whom?

But in reality we know that the same mobile phone in one place is a use value but in another place is not a use value - how then can it be the case that the utility of that object is, as you argue, inherent in that object when the same object loses its utility when simply moved from one place to another. If it's utility was inherent in the object then it should be a use value wherever it is, and it's use value should move with it, but it's not and it doesn't does it. The only way you can square this argument is to extend the definition of use value to one which includes things which are not not useful, which kind of defeats the point of the concept

Utility is a relational concept - between things & people and things & other things


----------



## love detective (Apr 13, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> Food and water don't depend on the presence of a second or third party for their value.


 
who are they useful to then if they just exist on their own? If no one (i.e. a second or third party, assuming the food/water is the first party) is in their presence what are they useful for? and to who?

edit: have re-read your post and i'm guessing you mean that the first party is a human and not the food/water. This still shows that use values are a relational concept though, the essence & source of utility is found in the relation between the object and the subject, not within the object in and off itself


----------



## magneze (Apr 13, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> It's relational with regard _to human beings. _That's so obvious that it goes without saying.
> 
> The point however is that use-value, unlike exchange-value, is not relational _to other values. _Use-values are inherent in and inseparable from their objects.
> 
> Try eating a potato without having a physical potato in your possession. Can't be done.


So you at least agree that it's not intrinsic.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> it's not just about the relation between people though, it's much wider than that - and it is just as much about the relational aspect of use values to other use values
> 
> what is the use value of a mobile phone (i.e. just a straight phone that does nothing else other than make/take calls) in a society that doesn't have a mobile phone network? It's no use at all. However your proposition is that the essence of a use value lies within the object in and off itself. However i'm sure you would agree a mobile phone in one society that has a communication network is a use value, but the same mobile phone in another society that does not have a communication network is not a use value. Now i'm sure you agree with this statement, but your premise/argument about use values being inherent in the thing in and off itself, would not allow you to agree with this as you say the use value of the mobile phone lies within the mobile phone in and off itself (and deny the relation aspect). So your premise/argument would lead you to argue that a mobile phone in a society without a mobile phone network is still a use value. I need to ask what is it useful for and to whom?
> 
> ...


 
Yes, yes, I agree with all that. Obviously any meaning of any kind only exists in a human environment etc.

But the difference between use-value and exchange-value remains the fact that use-value is inherent in the object being used. It is not necessarily always inherent therein, but it is never not inherent therein.

(ETA) That's not very clear.  What I mean is that, even though we can imagine a society in which a mobile phone would have no use-value, that does not alter the fact that any use-value it possesses for us is the result of its inherent, intrinsic properties.

Is that any clearer?


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 13, 2012)

magneze said:


> So you at least agree that it's not intrinsic.


 
On the contrary, I have just said that it is intrinsic.


----------



## magneze (Apr 13, 2012)

I disagree, but there you go. You seem as entrenched as I.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 13, 2012)

Economics being a science of human behaviour, isn't it whorishly pseudo-intellectual wankery to pretend that you don't understand that humans are assumed to be part of any proposed system or scenario?

I mean, for the sake of fuck:



> have re-read your post and i'm guessing you mean that the first party is a human and not the food/water


----------



## magneze (Apr 13, 2012)

Dunno what you're on about mate. Intrinsic has a pretty basic definition though. Fuck all to do with economics or science.


----------



## JimW (Apr 13, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> Economics being a science of human behaviour, isn't it whorishly pseudo-intellectual wankery to pretend that you don't understand that humans are assumed to be part of any proposed system or scenario?
> 
> I mean, for the sake of fuck:


If you'd realised you'd missed his point three pages ago we could have been saved this. Value isn't intrinsic, you were wrong.


----------



## camouflage (Apr 13, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> Economics being a science of human behaviour, isn't it whorishly pseudo-intellectual wankery to pretend that you don't understand that humans are assumed to be part of any proposed system or scenario?
> 
> I mean, for the sake of fuck:


 
'Economic Science', lol.


----------



## ayatollah (Apr 13, 2012)

love detective said:


> Kind of odd response to my post if you don't mind me saying, your making a number of assumptions about me and my politics that my post does not give any suggestion of or rational for you to do so.
> 
> In the post that you replied to, my main point was that the exploitation of labour is the essential feature of not just capitalist society, but any exploitative society. So number one priority for those who don't want to live in a society based on exploitation of others is to obliterate the social relations on which that exploitation rests, in this particular society, a capitalist one, that means the wage-labour/capital relation. So not sure how you portray me as (implicitly) wanting to have some kind of exploitative society when the main point of my post was to posit the need to get rid of the essence of exploitative society in general
> 
> ...


 
I think YOU have misunderstood my reply to YOUR post actually. I'm certainly NOT suggesting you in any way are proposing some sort of exploitative society - since your post's explicitly state that you don't. My POINT is that whereas I can see how (limited) markets and continued money useage (as a means of exchange) can be encompassed within a democratically run socialist society with collective ownership of the means of production and exchange, WITHOUT exploitation existing -- I am struggling to understand the overall social framework for YOUR proposal for a non exploitative society which still operates with markets and money.

It is true, and we surely agree here, that markets and money usage have existed within ancient slave based and feudal societies (though in the Feudal case of course capitalism DID eventually undermine and supercede this social form). But in those instances we surely still agree that the "dominant mode of production" has a clear form, and can be "labelled" appriopriately ? My question to you is : how would you characterise the social form .. the "mode of production" of YOUR "non exploitative society" with, (or indeed without) its markets and money usage ? It's no use just stating that you can envisage " These things, ripped from the exploitative relations that give them power ", without describing the social framework in at least an outline for achieving this. I don't think its an unreasonable point or question. I am assuming, it's true, that you aren't a socialist, so I'm genuinely at a loss to understand the overall social/political/power  framework for this new social system.

For instance a society composed of a collection of freely associating workers and consumer co-operatives, without an oppressive state, was one model proposed by radicals in the 19th century, but it is totally unclear how the capitalist system or its state could be replaced by such a set up. Anarchism does propose that we could pass directly to some form of this through revolution, without passing through a prolonged period of the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Is this the route to your new non exploitative society.. a variant of anarchism ?


----------



## love detective (Apr 13, 2012)

Two things

firstly, pointing out that a world without 'states, markets or money' doesn't equate to a society free from exploitation - which as stated was the main point of my post to which you replied - doesn't mean I have to put forward a detailed 'proposal' for the overal social framework in which a society which did not contain exploitation could still retain markets & money. My analysis of markets & money is a materialist one, one which does not treat them as a-historical a-social eternal/essentialised type things which have an inherent essence independent from the social relations on which they rest. My point is an analytical one, it's pointing out the obvious - I don't need to put forward a 'proposal' for the overal social framework in which a society which did not contain exploitation could still retain markets & money to make the point that I made.

secondly though, as it happens, I put forward exactly the kind of thing you are asking for above in a previous post to you here - I asked you for your thoughts on this previously and you failed to response to it, yet again here you are asking the same questions despite them being answered previously and you ignoring them. I'll quote some of that post for your benefit here




			
				love detective said:
			
		

> Unlike you, we don't profess to have all the answers, but rather than cowardly sticking to failed, discredited dogma, we are making a sincere effort to find a progressive way forward as far as the bigger picture is concerned. Two major pieces on 'Economic Democracy - the need for a vision' , part 1 here and part 2 here, for example, is our attempt to contribute to the mapping out of a pro-working class alternative economic model, one grounded in the concept of economic democracy.
> 
> These are not put forward as the final word on the matter, but as a starting point to stimulate discussion and criticism. Not surprisingly there has been little or none of that from the traditional left in regard to these. You may not agree with this alternative economic model (we would welcome your comments/opinions) but to say that the IWCA does not have any alternative vision to the capitalist system is somewhat disengenious when a cursory glance at the IWCA's website would show these two major pieces with the statement of a 'need for a vision' in their very title.


----------



## love detective (Apr 13, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Yes, yes, I agree with all that.


 
Good. I'm glad you now agree with my position, which i've been stating since my first post on this thread, that the essence of use value is a relational concept, one that is dependent on the relations between things and people and things and other things, and not intrinsic to a particular object in and off itself


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 14, 2012)

love detective said:


> Good. I'm glad you now agree with my position, which i've been stating since my first post on this thread, that the essence of use value is a relational concept, one that is dependent on the relations between things and people and things and other things, and not intrinsic to a particular object in and off itself


 
It is both dependent on the thing's relation to people _and _inherent in the intrinsic properties of the thing itself.

The important point is that the thing itself must be literally present in order for its use-value to be realized, while it must be absent in order to realize its exchange-value.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 14, 2012)

camouflage said:


> 'Economic Science', lol.


 
Where exactly did I use that risible phrase?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 14, 2012)

love detective said:


> My point made in the post you replied to, is that the OP contained a statement that communism could be defined by a 'world without states, markets and money'. My point is that getting rid of these things, but still having a society based on the exploitation of labour is a lot less communistic that one which retained some kind of system of money & markets but did not have as its essential feature, the exploitation of labour. If exploitation of labour (in any form, whether through forced labour or wage labour) does not exist, then things like money & markets lose the power that they have under a system of exploitation, and as I said would be relatively benign and in some cases even useful to a system of economic democracy, a point you agree with yourself


While it is true that it is possible to envisage a world without markets and money (not sure about without states) that is exploitative as there are plenty of historical examples of this, it is still the case that a communist society would have to be a society in which markets and money do not exist. Communism (in its true sense and original sense before Lenin, Stalin and the USSR) means that productive resources are owned in common, ie none of them are owned by rich individuals, corporations or states, but are simply there to be used. It follows from this that whatever is produced is also owned in common. As markets and money imply separate owners of products who exchange things they own these make no sense in a society of common ownership. The question that arises in such a society is not how to sell products (how can you buy or sell something of which you are a co-owner?), but how to share out, distribute, give people access to what has been produced. Ideally, in accordance with the principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs".

In other words, a society which retains money and markets cannot be communist. It is true that it is possible to envisage a society with these that would be non-exploitative. This would have to be a society of small-scale producers and traders in which everyone worked for themselves, ie without wage-labour, and exchanged things to satisfy their needs not to make a profit, a bit like what some in the Green Party used to envisage. The nearest it came to existing would have to have have been a few centuries ago in parts of Switzerland and New England. The trouble is, given the development and nature of modern-day technology and productive techniques, it is completely unrealistic today. We can't go back to 17th century New England. The only possible non-exploitative society today is one based on productive resources being the common heritage of all - and in which markets and money would be redundant.


----------



## love detective (Apr 14, 2012)

You are mixing up & conflating productive assets with the fruits of those productive assets, i.e. personal possessions & use values held by an individual

My post which stated that the essence of a non-exploitative society is one where there is no exploitation of labour implies a society where the private ownership of means of production can not be used to exploit the labour of others for the benefit of a few. So at this point we are agreed that the productive resources/means of production are not only owned collectively (in some way or another lets leave out the mechanics of this for just now) but are used towards the production of things that satisfy the needs & wants of all members of society (again lets leave out the mechanisms as to how this would actually happen for the time being) and unlike our current system the production of things to satisfy needs is the primary & sole purpose, not a means to something else (i.e. the appropriation of surplus value).

So at this stage we have a society where society in general and people individually enjoy the fruits of the productive capacities of that society either in accordance with their needs, or, in accordance with some other equitable means of distribution where the productive resources of that society are unable to produce the level of things required to satisfy 100% of those needs to 100% of the population

So assuming i'm a member of that society - are you seriously suggesting that my boxer shorts would be commonly owned by the rest of the society, that there would be a register somewhere logging that I have 'borrowed' those boxer shorts from the society, that anyone else could come round and inspect them when they wanted or even take them as they just as much belonged to someone else as they did to me? Despite this being absurd and a thoroughly totalitarian basis for what is meant to be a free and non-exploitative society - it is also absolutely redundant in regards the aims & objectives of that society.

This is because if productive assets are held & managed in common, and the distribution of the fruits of those productive assets managed in an equitable manner and according to need, then the existence of private ownership of personal items in no way contradicts the aims & objectives of that society. In fact the existence of some kind of secondary market could actually facilitate the smooth distribution of the collectively produced use values between people. If my child has a small bike and has grown to big for it, and someone down the road has a small child who wants to learn to ride a bike and someone else further down the road has a child who is nearly grown up and no use for their bigger childs bike. An effective redistribution of those originally distributed use values could take place to ensure the ongoing needs & wants of society's citizens are met. Now the effective redistribution of those bikes is not likely to happen by barter as that demands that all parties are close by each other and have things that the other wants. So some kind of money token would need to be used to facilitate the redistribution of things between these parties. So here we have 'money' being used within a 'market' within a non exploitative society for non exploitative ends, i.e. being used in a manner consistent with the objectives of the society it is part of - to ensure the efficient distribution of use values to those who need them

The existence of that 'money' and those 'markets' are there in this society to ensure the aims of the society are met (i.e. the distribution of use values to those who need them). Which coincidentally the people who claim that money & markets are inherently capitalistic/exploitative and have no place in a non-exploitative society, never seem to put forward any kind of proposals as to the mechanisms in which the aims of a non-exploitative society would be met. Yet when someone like me attempts to do just that, people start jumping up and down saying that those mechanisms would be exploitive.

The reason that these kind of secondary markets for use values (and the monetary tokens that would be used to facilitate exchange of those use values to avoid a barter situation) would not be exploitative is that the primary objective of production in our society would be one that is based on need. So the markets wouldn't be the primary way of distribution as they currently are, but an effective and efficient means of redistribution of things once they had actually left the productive arena and distributed as use values. No one would be able to build up large quantities of either surplus money or surplus use values as production is organised and distributed according to need. And even if someone was able to build up a bigger stock of money through some loophole, they would be unable to use this to exploit the labour of others as there would be no way that money could be turned into capital. This is because Labour would not be forced to sell itself privately on the market in a society where production is organised and distributed according to need.

Clearly such a society i mention is somewhat utopian and in some ways raises more questions than it answers, and the ability of a society to produce and distribute to satisfy the needs and wants of a global population is one which is in some doubt due to the variety of environmental & resource issues the world faces today, but this doesn't detract from the basic point that money & markets could play a part in a non-exploitative society. And such a society would certainly be less exploitative than one where money & markets did not exist but the exploitation of labour continued - which was the point of my original post on this topic


----------



## love detective (Apr 14, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> It is both dependent on the thing's relation to people _and _inherent in the intrinsic properties of the thing itself.


 
Well I'm glad you've now accepted the relational nature of use values, but you still need to go one step further and recognise the relational aspect is not only between things & people but also between the things and other things

Our mobile phone in the possession of a person in a society with no communication network is still not a use value remember - that's why i said it's about the relation of things to people and things to other things. Even a potato in it's natural state under the ground is not a use value unless its brought to a condition where it can be consumed, i.e. dug up, transported to a place of potato eaters etc, this generally involves it coming into a relation with other use values/things for it to realise it's potential as a use value - during this process the intrinsic qualities of the potato do not change, but it is transformed from being a non-use value to a use value

One last example on this - take the use value of labour power to capital (i.e. the ability, during productive consumption of it, for it to produce more value than it itself contains) - this use value only comes about if the labour power is set in motion alongside (brought into relation with) other use values, i.e. the means of production

So other than isolated cases of things like someone eating an apple that's fallen of a tree or drinking water from a stream - all use values are dependent on a relation not only been object & subject, but between object and other objects

So we can once and for all dispel this myth that the essence of a use value can be found entirely within a particular object - the essence of it is contained in the relation between things & people and things & other things



> The important point is that the thing itself must be literally present in order for its use-value to be realized, while it must be absent in order to realize its exchange-value.


 
This is a different point to the initial argument, I don't disagree with it, but it feels like a change of subject


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 14, 2012)

love detective said:


> You are mixing up & conflating productive assets with the fruits of those productive assets, i.e. personal possessions & use values held by an individual
> 
> So assuming i'm a member of that society - are you seriously suggesting that my boxer shorts would be commonly owned by the rest of the society, that there would be a register somewhere logging that I have 'borrowed' those boxer shorts from the society, that anyone else could come round and inspect them when they wanted or even take them as they just as much belonged to someone else as they did to me?


Of course not. That's not what I said or meant. What I meant was that everything that was produced would be owned in common at the point when it had been produced. All boxer shorts produced would be commonly owned and therefore would not need to be given a price-tag and put out for sale, but would be made available for people to take and use. Obviously, once somebody's taken some they are theirs to use and keep. They will become part of their "personal possessions" as you put it or, as I'd prefer to put it, part of the things for their personal use.

On your other point, no doubt in a money-free, communist society people will still want to give away things that they no longer want to use and maybe even to swap them, but are you seriously suggesting that there will need to be a bureaucracy to register and issue receipts and IOUs for such gifts and swaps?


----------



## love detective (Apr 14, 2012)

where did i suggest such a thing? I specifically said that such a bueracractic mechanism would not only be oppressive, but completely redundant. I said the redistribution of things would happen between the parties involved using some of the technical/functional mechanisms of a market and money (but making those mechanisms subordinate to the objective/aims of the society) - where do you get this register and bureaucracy from in what i wrote?


----------



## ayatollah (Apr 14, 2012)

love detective said:


> Two things
> 
> firstly, pointing out that a world without 'states, markets or money' doesn't equate to a society free from exploitation - which as stated was the main point of my post to which you replied - doesn't mean I have to put forward a detailed 'proposal' for the overal social framework in which a society which did not contain exploitation could still retain markets & money. My analysis of markets & money is a materialist one, one which does not treat them as a-historical a-social eternal/essentialised type things which have an inherent essence independent from the social relations on which they rest. My point is an analytical one, it's pointing out the obvious - I don't need to put forward a 'proposal' for the overal social framework in which a society which did not contain exploitation could still retain markets & money to make the point that I made.
> 
> secondly though, as it happens, I put forward exactly the kind of thing you are asking for above in a previous post to you here - I asked you for your thoughts on this previously and you failed to response to it, yet again here you are asking the same questions despite them being answered previously and you ignoring them. I'll quote some of that post for your benefit here


 
I'm afraid that I DID wade through the extraordinarily unfocussed material you recommended to me, some time ago, but remained quite unable to boil it down to any coherent model of a social system which has abolished exploitation. I was hoping that by now the IWCA had something a lot more focussed and understandable. Apparently not. All the extremely verbose material the IWCA puts forward is proposing IMO some sort of modified capitalist system in which extensive amounts of "workers democratic control" and workers co-ops have served to alleviate the worst aspects of capitalist oppression and exploitation - and then since it is described as "just a work in progress" .. after all these years, there is no attempt to firm up any of the , often contradictory , models outlined.

I have to admit I find the IWCA's politics hard to categorise, beyond "working class-based local activism", combined with a deep antagonism and contempt for socialism, and a writing off of trades union militancy , and a very dubious "take" on "multiculturalism" and the associated belief that the "left" nowadays is only concerned with non-white communities and "identity politics" --- a strange and unsettling brew indeed.

Though , strangely enough, I  can agree with your point that "a world without 'states, markets or money' doesn't (necessarily ) equate to a society free from exploitation " . So at least we agree on THAT, if apparently nothing else. However it DOESN't therefore follow that because this statement is demonstrably true , from historical evidence of ancient  societies, that its obverse : "a society which did not contain exploitation could still retain markets & money" is also obviously true -- UNLESS you can provide a coherent model of a society to demonstrate this. Your logic is simply faulty I'm afraid. We DO need that model as evidence to prove your point.


----------



## love detective (Apr 14, 2012)

So instead of engaging with the work put forward, and providing constructive criticism as invited, you just choose to ignore it - the point of the economic democracy work was to act as a starting point, to stimulate debate as to how a model, fit for purpose in contemporary times could be visioned. It says a lot that people, like yourself, who are critical off it avoid any kind of honest engagement or debate with it - instead you just ignore it and type things like SOCIALISM in CAPITAL letters from time to time and nothing else. As for you you saying 'after all these years' - the economic democracy stuff has been put out over the last couple of years, and as mentioned it was put forward as the IWCA's contribution to try and stimulate a much needed debate about what such a model could be, what vision do we need etc. Clearly you, like others on the conservative left (and insular academia) however have no interest in that debate as it's not rooted in and based on stale failed and discredited dogma which is no longer fit for purpose (if it ever was), i.e. your interest lies purely within examining historical artefacts as an end in itself

what's your model out of interest, and what is the means of getting there? you seem to be saying I can't make a logical point without backing it up with a fully packaged coherent & integrated social model with a gilt edged guarantee that it would 100% meet the objectives of it - let's have yours then? And i'm betting you won't be able to say anything more, in terms of substance, than I have already done. Repeating the aims of a non-exploitative society as the means and method of how it can be obtained is not an option either which is what you usually do (and neither remember is doing the same and putting some of it in CAPITAL letters)

edit: I can't believe actually that you are demanding evidence for what is essentially an a priori and definitional statement made by me - i.e. that a society which has as its basis, the exploitation of labour, is going to be inherently more exploitatve than one that doesn't. This is the essence of my first post on this matter which you jumped onto - do you really need evidence or a proposal for a social framework in order to understand that an exploitative society is by definition going to be more exploitiative than a non-exploitaitve society?

You seem to be implying something that contradicts what you yourself have said explicitly - i.e. that some of the technical/functional elements of market mechanisms could be used to the benefit of society in a non-exploitative way within a non-exploitative set of social relations


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 16, 2012)

What's you opinion of the Thesis of Parasitism alfred? 

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/94_parasitism


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 16, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> Wow. That's an astoundingly meaningless pile of bollocks. I'm impressed.


 
RL this is a very poor attempt at dismissal due to not engaging with the first half of the post. As for the second half, you seem quite able to attribute meaning to it in a later post (albeit erroneously...the demand for a 'free market' is deliberately missing from my touchy feely paean to communism), so meaningless would seem wide of the mark.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 16, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> It is precisely this sort of emotive, sub-romantic gushing that puts so many people off becoming communists. (It's that repetition of "our" in the last sentence that really grates... unbearable)


 
Committed narcissist bridles at the expression of a desire for community and solidarity shocker. This is thin stuff even judged by the usual standards of reflection from dywerworld.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Greebo (Apr 16, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Committed narcissist bridles at the expression of a desire for community and solidarity shocker. This is thin stuff even judged by the usual standards of reflection from dywerworld.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


One poster doesn't like their writing style being criticised by another shocker.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 16, 2012)

Greebo said:


> One poster doesn't like their writing style being criticised by another shocker.


 
I don't mind phil's criticisms (in part because they are not the real substatce of his posts); it's his predictable, dullard, one club, attention seeking that grates.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 16, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> RL this is a very poor attempt at dismissal due to not engaging with the first half of the post. As for the second half, you seem quite able to attribute meaning to it in a later post (albeit erroneously...the demand for a 'free market' is deliberately missing from my touchy feely paean to communism), so meaningless would seem wide of the mark.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
I'm sorry, I didn't realise it was a serious point. I thought it was an inept parody of Soviet socialist realist propaganda. You have to admit that it was pretty light on specifics.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 16, 2012)

What do you think about this paragraph alfredo? do you agree with it?


> In response to the ICC’s analyses and concerns over parasitism, we are often told that the phenomenon only concerns our own organisation, whether as a target or as a “supplier”, through splits, of the parasitic milieu. It is true that today, the ICC is parasitism’s main target, which is explained easily enough by the fact that it is the largest and most widespread organisation of the proletarian movement. It consequently provokes the greatest hatred from the enemies of this movement, which never miss an occasion to stir up hostility towards it on the part of other proletarian organisations. Another reason for this “privilege” of the ICC is the fact precisely that our organisation has suffered the most splits leading to the creation of parasitic groups. We can suggest several explanations for this phenomenon.​​


 
every time i think about it i start laughing


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 17, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> I'm sorry, I didn't realise it was a serious point. I thought it was an inept parody of Soviet socialist realist propaganda. You have to admit that it was pretty light on specifics.


 
Still unable or unwilling to engage...I'm not surprised.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------

