RE: [OPE] labor tokens and efficiency

Date: Fri May 08 2009 - 07:51:49 EDT

> Well one would have to take into account Marx's stipulation that more
> intense labour within a given trade or profession counts for more than
> less intense labour. If there is some objective way of measuring this,
> then a work group of say 10 people could decide how they wanted to divy
> up the 350 hours labour points for a weeks work at a nominal 35 hours
> between them. If every one agreed that citizen smith was working the
> equivalent of 10 hours a day and citizen Jones only 4 a day, then a
> transfer could be made without it violating the labour theory of value.

Hi Paul C:

Well, I see what you're saying. But,
1. your 'objective way' - scientific management? - has possible dangers.
Do workers really want fellow workers to be time-and-study people who
are constantly thinking of ways to increase labor intensity and reduce
'unnecessary' movements, etc?
2. why should socialist society be concerned about violating
the LTV? The LTV is not a socialist principle.

> Well that will not work for collectivities. If the Bright Red Star
> collective wastes labour relative to the Purple Banner of Morning
> collective, Bright Red Stars output will be marked at a higher labour
> content and consumers will choose the product from Purple Banner.

In other words, Bright Red Star will be put at a disadvantage if they
"waste" time on meetings and democratic decision-making. The logic of this
would be for them to select a person - the most qualified, knowledgeable,
trusted - to make the decisions for them. But, then you'd have an
aristocracy in the workplace, wouldn't you? The alternative - select
someone at random - would have its own dangers since a greater number
of people would be needed for democratic decision making - at least,
according to the wisdom of crowds principle.

In solidarity, Jerry_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
Received on Fri May 8 07:53:40 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 31 2009 - 00:00:03 EDT