/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

The Critique of the Gotha Programme is wrong!
Workers can get back their full contribution as income!

The draft of the Gotha Programme said that "…the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society". Marx claimed this to be impossible. The published Gotha Programme does not this statement anymore. But was it logically necessary to yeet that statement? Was Marx right that there must be deductions?

Here is what Marx did not like about the bit with undiminished proceeds:
<Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

<From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

<These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

<There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

<Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

We might be able to define contribution in marginalist terms. Marginal contribution is a very brittle concept because depending on what time horizon we are thinking in, different things are fixed and fluid, and so our measure changes. Moreover, once we have settled on our accounting norms for measuring the marginal physical output, we can still set the selling price in this or that way, resulting in changing the marginal monetary output of the same action. And what's the marginal contribution to somebody's utility is still another question. We can set the marginal contribution as relative to some expectation value and call anything falling short of that a loss caused by the less-than-perfect person being there and preventing a better person from doing that task perfectly. It seems to me there is so much wiggle room with marginalism that we can define anybody's marginalist contribution to be as small as we want. Playing this definition game is one way of giving everybody back their whole contribution. But let's do something else.

Of course, people can donate and that is not a forced deduction. Of course, joining a voluntary insurance scheme is not a forced deduction either. But there is more: THE KETCHUP ARGUMENT. For this, we will first look at a a seemingly off-topic scenario and then draw our conclusion.

Consider a company that sells sausages. The company promises to not raise sausage prices for the next twelve months. Six months later, a customer complaints: He always eats the sausages with a special ketchup, and this ketchup got more expensive. Well, ketchup getting more expensive might be a reason to be sad, but this does not mean that the sausage company broke its promise about its sausages (even if the same company is also the only one selling this ketchup).

Now consider the following. Imagine you live in a society that promises its citizens this: Doing an hour of labor enables you to buy an hour of labor, without the qualifier "after deductions". You check for the so-called "labor-minute price" of a pretzel you bought. There is a public database about cost accounting in production that clearly shows that natural resources have positive fictional labor minutes assigned already before the factual labor time gets added to that. Well, that might be a reason to be sad, but you doing an hour of dog-sitting does indeed enable you to buy a full hour of another person dog-sitting for you. So, is society really breaking its promise? You might be sad that giving one hour does not get you one hour plus some other stuff (resource inputs), but that was not the promise. The promise was: You can get one hour for giving one hour. That promise is kept.

And so, with green taxes for resources like land, we do have our funds for stuff without taxing labor. In conclusion, Marx was wrong. Dog-sitters of the world, unite!

>>2348685
Wrong. Read https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch37.htm

>>2348697
Not written by Marx and that section you linked does not even refer to Marx. I don't believe you have fully read the post before writing your phony reply.

>>2348712
Marx never lived to see a complete proletarian State. Therefore Marx has nothing of cognitive value to say about such thing from materialist point of view. Proletarian State textbooks clairify your issue

>>2348725
Post >>2348685 is against a specific claim by Marx. Whether you try to support Marx in this or the post against the claim, it does not make sense to link https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch37.htm since it does not make a statement about the claim. If you don't care about what Marx said, there is no point in replying at all.

>>2348831
Marxism is not Karl Marx Thought

>>2348831
his refutation of Marx's claim is refuted within www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch37.htm
his farcical take on socialist value distribution can be corrected by reading that chapter

>>2349133
>Marxism is not Karl Marx Thought
Post >>2348685 is explicitly about a statement by Karl Marx and not somebody or something named "Karl Marx Thought".

>>2349152
>take on socialist value distribution can be corrected by reading that chapter
There is no conflict whatsoever between post >>2348685 and that chapter, hence the chapter cannot be a correction of the post nor vice versa. The entire point of that post is about a logical compatibility that Marx believed to not exist. The chapter posted makes no statement for or against its existence.

New Big Dick Vic MAGA-RINO

>>2351815
already posted >>2347225

>>2356427
I of course agree with TANS (and Marx and Engels) that we will continue to estimate and measure labor time (and that we will take into account task training for the production cost of a product while not using received training as justification for higher income).

Still, wouldn't we want to plan as much as we can with different individual abilities as they exist in different individuals? Think of a huge checklist of abilities for each person (most fields empty, fixed in the short run).

>>2356540
>Still, wouldn't we want to plan as much as we can with different individual abilities as they exist in different individuals?
yes. this is a huge deficiency in Cockshott Thought. any planned economy will quickly find itself having to deal with not just the total amount of labour power at its disposal, but also what kinds of labour power there are

im going to be reading some stuff on this soon, but I wonder if anyone can answer a basic stupid question of mine. For a computer to centrally plan all activity within a system, it must have total visibility on that system right? Isn't this a big privacy issue?

>>2357635
privacy in production is bad. in consumption on the other hand, yeah we probably don't need to know who buys the dragon dildos, only how many we expect to be needed

>>2357635
The issue with surveillance and privacy is when there is a lack of symmetry. It's the lack of symmetry that makes it a power thing: "I see you but you can't see me." Universal lack of privacy would be awkward at first, but not a power thing. That said, it is possible to compute with privacy, it just adds some complications. See: voting.

>>2357639
And let's think about who at the warehouse of the online shop needs to know what. The person picking the item from the storage space (if that is even a person) does not need to know who receives it, the person putting the item into a postal package (again, if that is even a person) does not need to know who receive it either: When the item is put into the postal package, the package gets a code attached (barcode or QR code or RFID). The package goes down a conveyor belt, a machine checks the code, retrieves the associated address from a database, and puts the address on the package. It sometimes still happens that a person sees the information (e. g. when a package accidentally opens). So the people working there are also under oath not to share this information.

When a big family goes to the supermarket, usually one wallet pays for everything. The supermarket does not need to know how the items are assigned within the family. Even with online shopping of individuals all using their own wallets the requests could be routed through households and a cluster of households, with the item sender by default only knowing the household cluster.

Joshua Dávila AKA The Blockchain Socialist wrote a book called Blockchain Radicals: How Capitalism Ruined Crypto and How to Fix It. Please read this wonderful review: https://theluddite.org/post/blockchain-radicals.html

If you just want the verdict: The book is ass.

>>2358515
this sounds like a multi-armed bandit problem. you just have to estimate what different production methods will cost over time. we can't know the future exactly
>GIMMI MY FREE TIME
if we optimize on social labour then we can give workers more free time than they have now. since the RoE is ~100% worldwide, this means a 20 hour work week

>>2357635
<For a computer to centrally plan all activity within a system, it must have total visibility on that system right? Isn't this a big privacy issue?
I mean no more than capitalism? Isn't all that data and far more already captured? it would probably be less considering advertising wouldnt be as much a thing so you wouldn't need detailed machine learning data

Is it possible to implement this kind of cybercommunist system side by side with already existing capitalist economy? Like for example lets say in Belgium (and I am picking this one specifically because it is a developed but small country) a communist party gets in power and nationalizes all major domestic enterprises, interlinks them in cybernetic manner implements labour time accounting, and starts publishing labour credit with which consumers can procure goods from state. However portion of economy still remains in private hands, foreign companies still keep their property, and the country as a whole is still integrated withing global market. Is this something that could exist from purely economic perspective (for the sake of argument we ignore political factors)? Basically what I am asking is, could communism be implementable on scale that does not allow for near autarky.

>>2360680
Explain to me first how this is communism.

>>2360720
Ok, let me rephrase it, could this kind of economic planning be implemented side by side with already existing capitalist economy?

>>2360809
So the people working at these nationalized enterprises are paid with labor vouchers with which they can only get goods provided by the state. But goods by the state could only be from said nationalized enterprises which likely doesn‘t cover everything a person may need. To remedy this the state would start buying from private enterprises to provide said goods to people only paid in labor vouchers. The money for that either comes from tax payers using normal currency or from the state selling to other countries to then buy goods from private companies as to be able to provide these goods to people paid only in labour vouchers. That sounds cumbersome and unnecessary to me and would likely lead people to want to be paid out in normal currency instead.

Isn‘t this ultimately the Chinese system just with time based labour vouchers instead? If China doesn‘t use time based labour vouchers while existing under global capitalism then I‘m guessing the answer to your question is no.

>>2360680
I don't see why not. not even the USSR was fully planned. we're going to have to deal with the market for possibly hundreds of years. it is important however that the thumb is put down hard on domestic Porkies
>>2360823
speaking of China, does anyone know to what extent planning is used in the PRC today?

>>2360826
From what I read there is no equivalent of "detailed" planning. Their main planning body is National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), which sets long term economic goals. State implements its plans though tax cuts and subsidies towards favoured industries, regulations, monetary policy, public works. Pretty much the same as any other country, just to larger extend than most.

>>2360842
in other words indicative planning? boo

>>2348685
Arguably the public taking a share from what a diseased person owned (or even all of it) isn't a forced deduction from labor either. Have you ever heard a dead person protest against it?

>>2363523 (me)
FUCK. Meant to write:
Arguably the public taking a share from what a deceased person owned (or even all of it) isn't a forced deduction from labor either.

>>2360680
Cuba exists, you know? It's very similar to what you're describing.
Short answer is: no, you can't, since the global market will block you out due to your socialist economy. It happened *every single fucking time*.

Was YUGOSLAVIA Economically DOOMED? Myths vs Facts – with Eddie Gerba, PhD

Thoughts on the Yugoslav economy? I think it's pretty overlooked by most communists since it wasn't part of the USSR, but I believe it's quite interesting nonetheless. It was actually largely planned and not some "liberal capitalism with red flags" like I've heard before around here.
I suggest you look at the attached video and also the other videos in the youtube channel, very interesting stuff.

>>2378272
yugoslavia had some interesting differences and effects, i don't recomend people to just discart it away like some do.

>>2378272
Also, from Wikipedia:
>The exact nature and extent of market socialism in Yugoslavia is debated by economists. The market mechanism was limited mostly to consumer goods, while capital, labor, materials and intermediate goods were allocated by different means.[33] The Yugoslav model didn't have much in common with the classic model of market socialism imagined by Oskar R. Lange. John Roemer, an advocate of market socialism, had a very negative view of the Yugoslav experiment, claiming that Yugoslav companies weren't run on true market principles of competition and profit, and that they instead relied on soft budget constraints and were subjected to political control, which created a deeply inefficient system that ultimately collapsed.[34] While admitting that it is somewhat problematic to use the term market in the context of socialist countries such as Yugoslavia or Hungary (after the introduction of New Economic Mechanism), János Kornai believed that the term market socialism is still appropriate because such countries at least partially experimented with markets under socialism which would otherwise remain only an abstract idea.[35]

>>2378272
>>2378282
Mass unemployment as a permanent feature is "quite interesting". It brings out "interesting differences and effects".

bought arguments for socialism, has cockshott amended any of the ideas and arguments put through there since its publishing?

>>2379850
great book, one of cockshotts best and one of the first leftist texts I ever read. Arguments for socialism has most of his core ideas that he later expanded in How the world works and other books and in new videos and lectures. The book itself is a compilation of articles.

>>2379773
>repeating capitalist lies
the mass unemployment meme is fake you fucking retard, do you also believe soviets stood in bread lines for hours on end? why don't you start informing yourself?

>>2381337
>the mass unemployment meme is fake
First time in my life I'm hearing this.

>>2378272
nobody is talking about this, but a lot of yugoslav economy was mafia economy. Source: old yugoslav friend who tells me mafia stories

>>2381364
wow it must be amazing to step out of the liberal microsphere

>>2382354
Would you count books from the GDR as liberal? I assure you that statement about Yugoslavia was repeated all across the spectrum and still is. Do you dispute that millions of Yugos left the country to work in the West (that was decades before Yugoslavia's collapse)?

>>2378282
>yugoslavia had some interesting differences and effects, i don't recommend people to just discard it away like some do.
Yugoslavia model shouldn't be discarded on a scholarly basis. Especially since there's a market socialist tendency that is been advocated in modern day by left social democrats, and market socialists, without out taking in account the Yugoslav experience. Without study of the economic models of historical socialist or so called "socialist" countries, economic thought, and economic programs among socialist will remain underdeveloped.

>>2382763
>Do you dispute that millions of Yugos left the country to work in the West (that was decades before Yugoslavia's collapse)?
You keep repeating capitalist talking points, *literally* the same shit that was said about the USSR.

>>2383477
1. It's not a capitalist talking point if everybody is saying it. The formula of Pythagoras is not a capitalist talking point.
2. It's not mere saying but observation that millions of Yugos worked out of country.

Can one use current data to make an AI/algorithm for a command economy or is it too compromised?

>>2391826
data are always imperfect. so long as you can estimate their accuracy this is fine

>>2391826
>>2391829
to a certain extent yes, but you need to roll out the planned economy gradually and build an observability function

The Numbersixer

Marx:
<…the mass of workers must themselves appropriate their own surplus labour. Once they have done so – and disposable time thereby ceases to have an antithetical existence – then, on one side, necessary labour time will be measured by the needs of the social individual, and, on the other, the development of the power of social production will grow so rapidly that, even though production is now calculated for the wealth of all, disposable time will grow for all. For real wealth is the developed productive power of all individuals. The measure of wealth is then not any longer, in any way, labour time, but rather disposable time.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch14.htm

And how do we increase disposable time? In no particular order:
1. We get rid of involuntary unemployment.
2. The former ruling class now also works.
3. We do thorough investigations into demand to avoid unwanted production.
4. We cooperate to reduce redundancies in production.
5. There are technological improvements (not a uniquely socialist point, but whatever).

Inspired by Lenin (or Engels or Trotsky), one might add another point:
6. We enforce utmost discipline at work, military style.

Is number 6 a sensible policy? Why do we want to minimize work time? Because it sucks. Counterpoint: How much work sucks is not a fixed fact of life. Even that work has to suck at least a little bit is not a given, since people also do voluntary unpaid work in their free time.

The numbersixer might give in a bit and say: OK, we won't need much discipline when working on luxuries, but everybody will work a short time in producing basics and that's where we need the discipline.

But is that really logically necessary? Consider food (what could be more basic). Do you work as quickly as physically possible when preparing food, never pause, never chatter? Do you maximize calories produced per minute? A situation where we have to think like that is not inconceivable, it's just that I'm not in that situation and you who is reading this is probably not anywhere close to that either. For many workplaces it is easily conceivable that the work could happen at a different pace. It is not at all obvious to me how one can declare that the fastest physically possible pace must be the most rational way of doing things (not even Fred Taylor, the guy Taylorism is named after, advocated for maximal exertion).

The numbersixer replies: You forgot the free time. Through maximum disciple you get maximum free time!

There must be more to life than doing nothing! Or doing something completely self-directed alone in a tiny room. Like being able to influence your own working conditions even while working as a member of a massive group. I might actually prefer to work longer without more remuneration, but at slower pace. The socialist planning procedures ought to be flexible enough to deal with that, just like they ought to be flexible enough to deal with people working default pace choosing overtime or part-time schedule with corresponding changes in income (or just building up accounts for "stored" extra hours and emptying them later with monthly remuneration staying the same throughout).

>>2391955
there's no gommunism button, no. we might make leaps from time to time if conditions are right
>>2391961
just don't autistically hyperfocus on minimizing labour time. shortening the working week is probably a decent direction to go in. this gives more time for hobbies

>>2391955
>>2391829
Would it do any good to make the bot/algo now and kinda predict how things will turn out and how it could've been mitigated? Or would it be a waste of resources?

>>2392032
we need the data first of all. without real data we'd just be engaging in mental masturbation