A question for our Marxists - Page 12 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15172196
Ganeshas Rat wrote:How does it even work? Before the 17th century Earth was marxist, then Adam Smith comes with "Hey, I've invented money and private property" and started the great capitalist revolution?


No, not at all.

During the Midlde Ages, there was feudalism.

Then, there came mercantilism.

Then, people in Amsterdam in the late 1600s began investing in companies and ideas that could return a profit on their investment.

And at the same time, England was developing the first private banks.

That is when capitalism started.
#15172198
Rancid wrote:Here's another question though.

Did Marx's existence accelerate labor movements? I would guess yes, but the harder question to answer would be, by how much?


I doubt Marx did much for the labor movement in Europe given he wrote about a movement that didn't have much political influence in his lifetime. I guess he was just read by the right (or wrong) people who happen to be part of the global Socialism movement when revolution took place and as such was an influence not by the workers but the militants. However two global events were key in improving standards in welfare and labor movements actually. The first was the French revolution and the second was WW2. I suspect Marx was only was a factor once Unions were formed in order to maintain them rather than being the catalyst for their existence.
#15172200
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then, there came mercantilism.


Yeah, well, it's like saying that most of the countries in the XX century were not capitalist but keynesian. And in XIX century they were not capitalist but imperialist. I think you mix economical basis and economical politics (mercantilism being one of possible politics for the capitalist society).

Pants-of-dog wrote:During the Midlde Ages, there was feudalism.

And it's by the way is not true too. Yes, there was feudalism during the Middle Ages. In Europe. What was there in other parts of the world these times? What was there in Europe before middle ages?

It's the whole chain of creation thing ever again. Thinkers of the past looked at animals and concluded that bacteria are simpler than fish that are simpler than reptiles that are simpler than mammals that are simpler than the Crown of Creation of Human Being. Kant when he didn't know he's a great philosopher wrote a whole manuscript where he astrologically proved that Venus is inhabited by people twice more stupid than Earthers, Martians being twice as smart, Jupiterians being twice as smart as Martians and Saturnians very smart even by Jupiterian standards. Now Marx, being the most stupid European philosopher ever born, without a blink applied this theological medieval bullshit to economics and got its own chain of creation which includes primeval economics moving to slavery moving to feudalism moving to capitalism moving to his own socialism. He of course never explained things like what is the difference between slavery and capitalism (Adam Smith grew up in the capitalist country that actively used slaves) and why slavery necessarily should lead to the institute of land military aristocracy that appeared in one region of the world for a short time. Humans are just more evolutionary perfect than fish, that's how it is.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And at the same time, England was developing the first private banks.

The word "bank" doesn't sound like very English. Weird for a thing that was supposedly invented in England. I'm pretty sure there's some mistake here.
#15172204
Ganeshas Rat wrote:Yeah, well, it's like saying that most of the countries in the XX century were not capitalist but keynesian. And in XIX century they were not capitalist but imperialist. I think you mix economical basis and economical politics (mercantilism being one of possible politics for the capitalist society).

And it's by the way is not true too. Yes, there was feudalism during the Middle Ages. In Europe. What was there in other parts of the world these times? What was there in Europe before middle ages?

It's the whole chain of creation thing ever again. Thinkers of the past looked at animals and concluded that bacteria are simpler than fish that are simpler than reptiles that are simpler than mammals that are simpler than the Crown of Creation of Human Being. Kant when he didn't know he's a great philosopher wrote a whole manuscript where he astrologically proved that Venus is inhabited by people twice more stupid than Earthers, Martians being twice as smart, Jupiterians being twice as smart as Martians and Saturnians very smart even by Jupiterian standards. Now Marx, being the most stupid European philosopher ever born, without a blink applied this theological medieval bullshit to economics and got its own chain of creation which includes primeval economics moving to slavery moving to feudalism moving to capitalism moving to his own socialism. He of course never explained things like what is the difference between slavery and capitalism (Adam Smith grew up in the capitalist country that actively used slaves) and why slavery necessarily should lead to the institute of land military aristocracy that appeared in one region of the world for a short time. Humans are just more evolutionary perfect than fish, that's how it is.

The word "bank" doesn't sound like very English. Weird for a thing that was supposedly invented in England. I'm pretty sure there's some mistake here.


I am not going to teach you the history of finances.

Unless you can provide evidence that capitalism was not imposed on the Americas during the era of colonialism, or can provide another reason why public healthcare is provided within a capitalist framework, I am done with this conversation.

Thank you.
#15172208
Unthinking Majority wrote:I agree they are greedy bastards and I don't like it as much as you don't like it. I'm not a heartless bastard I feel for these people greatly.

My point is that there's a broader international system at play. The US isn't acting in isolation, they're acting within a system of other competing states who are trying to look out for their own security and interests. There are complex dynamics in geopolitics where one move will always result in a countermove by another country.

50-60 years ago following WWII we would have all loved if the US had left Latin America alone and let them have the freedom to develop however each country wanted right? Well then what would have happened do you think if the US did that? The USSR would have filled the power vacuum and done very similar things to these Latin countries. They would have spread communism, ousted democratic/capitalist governments, assassinated leaders etc. We know this because this is what both the USSR and the US did in African countries throughout the Cold War.

This is why the US did not want Cuba to be communist. It was a threat to them. The USSR was spreading their power into a region right next to the USA, and would have kept spreading it if the US didn't do something. And if the US didn't intervene in South-east Asia the USSR/China would have spread communism there too and gained more power.

This is not to excuse the behaviour, but it's to explain it. And yes it has to do with profits, because not only are the wealthy corporations very influential to politicians, but more GDP makes the USA more powerful, and better able to defend themselves against the countries that threaten them, like Russia, China etc.

So my point is, if you want these kinds of imperial actions to stop then there needs to be important changes to the international system which prevents ALL countries from being imperial to any others. The solution has to be international law that's enforceable. You can't just blame the US, you have to blame everyone. It's a race to the bottom. The US could stop but China and Russia would fill the vacuum in the middle-east, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and become far more imperialistic, wealthy, and powerful as a result. The US will not sacrifice it's national security for the national security of Honduras or Cuba.

Again i'm not saying don't criticize the US, I'm saying understand the geopolitical realities. These are not my original ideas, this is what international professors on international relations are also saying.



No @Unthinking Majority Unthinking the issue has to do with how nations interact. How they abuse power and the sphere of influence each one has. That is not an excuse to say that because the Russians are there and the Chinese are there we got to abuse these people. It doesn't work that way Unthinking.

I have studied very very old human civilizations. The greed factor, wars, and abuse has been going on for a very long time. The final result of these empires is a lot of internal enemies and external enemies. The old Empire exhausts its available resources and by abusing the closest in a geographic location to the group or groups? They make them enemies instead of friends. When another one shows up on the scene the ones being abused unite with the new challenger and take down the old Empire. Why do they do this? The ones being abused resent the hell out of the known old empire. You don't gain safety with that mentality Unthinking. You actually accelerate your demise as an Empire.

Humanity needs to evolve out of the abuse of empire mode. We have been in that mode for a very long time. How many Empires have waned and lost their possessions and colonies over the centuries. Lands and people they used to dictate to and now they are totally beholden to? It is a lot of nations that are old Empires. England, France, Spain Portugal, Japan, Turkey, Greece, Rome, old empires of the past like Egypt. I studied them all including the Mayan ones. The Incan ones. What is to be learned from these dead civilizations who once controlled a lot of land, resources, and people and eventually faded away? Their empires gone and no longer controlling what they once controlled. The original 13 colonies of the USA? Once controlled by the King of England. It became a world power much stronger militarily than its colonizer. What does that say about Empire to you Unthinking? That it is a failed practice. People break away from it. Why?

If you are willing to accept that it fails then you realize there is an answer to a better way of coping with power relationships between nations.

If you don't accept that all of the ex-colonies in Africa, Latin America, Asia, and even in Oceania have broken away from the original Empire that colonized it? You got to realize there is a pattern to it all. You find the breakpoint for the pattern and then you build off of again something that is about mutual benefit. Not extract and destroy and oppress. That formula that the USA uses and many other old European and Asian empires of the past? It has proven to be a failure. Build on failures. Learn from them. Build something made to be durable, mutually beneficial, and respectful.

In the end, the people in the USA don't want to be the only refuge for the entire world of displaced people. It is unsustainable. Create sustainability by making countries independent enough, and prosperous enough to pay their own way and build up their societies. Where they are satisfied with the results and no longer run from their home nations. They look forward to a better future. A better life.

In the end, human beings got to stop thinking that stomping on others and their resources is the way to be king of the hill. Because it is false. All the ex empires in history wind up wasting the ill-gotten money and resources and instead, the elites abuse the profit and strip the wealth and it never serves the least in their own societies. it doesn't unify anyone---it only results in deep fissures, resentments, and infighting, and ultimately unraveling. Do you see signs of that in the USA? I do.
#15172210
Pants-of-dog wrote:The only reason these exist within a capitalist economy is because a capitalist economy was imposed on us.

You live in a democratic country and chose to move there and choose to remain there because it has a successful capitalist economy, and in fact choose to live in the most rightwing neoliberal capitalist province in your country because of its capitalist economic benefits while the most leftwing government in the country (NDP in BC) are only a hop and a skip away. People vote with their feet.

In such a democratic country the population has never voted for communism, they vote to maintain capitalism, and have also voted for governments that enact and support many socialized programs. The most leftwing socialist government in Canada (NDP) has never governed federally because most voters reject their ideas, and Bernie Sanders can't get elected in the US. I don't see anything imposed on anyone in these Western countries, other than indigenous of course. If you're talking about latin america then sure I agree about capitalism being imposed there.

Now why do Canadians keep voting in parties that support regulated capitalism with a healthy mix of socialist programs like healthcare, education etc? Because it's the best system the human race has come up with thus far and Canadian voters are generally quite rational. That doesn't mean it's perfect, or can't be improved, but it's the closest to perfect that humans have implemented in its 200,000 year history.

You're also free to start a cooperative in Canada and many other western countries, and many exist. Most people choose not to do so, for whatever reason. I assume it's because the people who put most of the work in to startup a business would rather make more money than share it.

Let us look at workplace safety:

Hypothesis: safety regulations cost more for the employer. Test/observation/evidence: workplaces with safety regulations have more expenses than those that don't. Conclusion: safety regulations are expensive so employers do not want to pay for them.

Now, employers do not want to spend more and make less money. So employers did not want, and often do not want, workplace safety concerns. Only workers do.

And since safety costs money, and it is the employer paying, it is the employer who gets to decide, since it is their money.

Now, since no one wants to pay more to get less profit, employers have to be forced to make these changes.

So, when we use social science to test the idea, we see that workers cannot force the issue themselves, so governments need to make laws requiring them.

We see a need for state intervention on behalf of the working class that penalises the owner of the means of production.

I totally agree with all of this you're 100% correct. This is why laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work well, and a major reason why the USA has so many more social problems than ie: Canada, UK, Denmark etc.

A 100% public economy also doesn't work well as it's been tried thus far. It is prone to corruption and inefficiencies. That's why a mixed system works best. You need capitalism to unleash efficiency and productivity, while keeping it more honest and fair with government regulations, and keeping society somewhat equitable with strong social programs.

The USA isn't the model for a successful society. If the USA was more like Canada or Norway things would be much better there. Even in the developing world it's been shown that a mixed system is best. Capitalism with strong state intervention/regulation, not neoliberalism which leads to exploitation by foreign capital.
#15172221
Unthinking Majority wrote:You live in a democratic country and chose to move there and choose to remain there because it has a successful capitalist economy, and in fact choose to live in the most rightwing neoliberal capitalist province in your country because of its capitalist economic benefits while the most leftwing government in the country (NDP in BC) are only a hop and a skip away. People vote with their feet.


Almost none of this is true.

Most Chileans that left in the diaspora did so because they were political refugees and exiles. They had no choice. They could leave or die.

Canada did not accept refugees from Chile, because they were leftists. Saskatchewan had an NDP government at the time (a political party that grew out of the labour movement) and accepted many refugees.

Most Chileans could not return until the end of the dictatorship. And by then, most had lives in the rest of the world and we simply cannot afford to live in both places since we are not independently wealthy.

So, to dismiss all of this and simply assume it is solely a whimsical decision to make a bit more cash is, to say the least, reductionist to a fault.

[
In such a democratic country the population has never voted for communism, they vote to maintain capitalism, and have also voted for governments that enact and support many socialized programs. The most leftwing socialist government in Canada (NDP) has never governed federally because most voters reject their ideas, and Bernie Sanders can't get elected in the US. I don't see anything imposed on anyone in these Western countries,


Do you know why we all left Chile?

Because the people voted for socialism and the capitalists imposed a dictatorship.

other than indigenous of course. If you're talking about latin america then sure I agree about capitalism being imposed there.

Now why do Canadians keep voting in parties that support regulated capitalism with a healthy mix of socialist programs like healthcare, education etc?


Because they benefit from the extractive capitalism and colonialism that oppresses Indigenous people and was imposed at gunpoint.

Because it's the best system the human race has come up with thus far and Canadian voters are generally quite rational. That doesn't mean it's perfect, or can't be improved, but it's the closest to perfect that humans have implemented in its 200,000 year history.

You're also free to start a cooperative in Canada and many other western countries, and many exist. Most people choose not to do so, for whatever reason. I assume it's because the people who put most of the work in to startup a business would rather make more money than share it.


Yes, it is as if the rich can use their economic leverage to dictate social norms. Hmmmm.

I totally agree with all of this you're 100% correct. This is why laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work well, and a major reason why the USA has so many more social problems than ie: Canada, UK, Denmark etc.

A 100% public economy also doesn't work well as it's been tried thus far. It is prone to corruption and inefficiencies. That's why a mixed system works best. You need capitalism to unleash efficiency and productivity, while keeping it more honest and fair with government regulations, and keeping society somewhat equitable with strong social programs.

The USA isn't the model for a successful society. If the USA was more like Canada or Norway things would be much better there. Even in the developing world it's been shown that a mixed system is best. Capitalism with strong state intervention/regulation, not neoliberalism which leads to exploitation by foreign capital.


Since you seem so scientifically minded rigt now, please provide a scientific explanation for your argument that capitalism is the best we can do.

Thanks.
#15172223
ckaihatsu wrote:
Spoiler: show
Can you address my sample scenario, then -- ? If I happen to be more productive per hour of work, per labor role, producing more widgets. how would my greater rate of productivity be taken into account and rewarded, exactly?

Okay, how?

Okay, thank you for your honesty here -- you're acknowledging that individual varying rates of productivity, per hour, per work role, would be 'externalities' to the social calculation of non-commodified socialized labor value.

I superimposed some quantitative aspects for the categories in my 'Components of Social Production' diagram -- please note that the various fundamental social material interests around social production -- for any given mode of production -- are *inherently* contrasted to each other: Workers want to work less and live more, but to live more means to *consume* more, as consumers (not workers), which requires more social labor time, for social production, from more workers, somewhere.

Likewise, social administration can be had at the cost of depleting the pool of laborers doing actual productive work, presumably for the sake of society enjoying greater scales of coordination and production -- efficiencies that would otherwise not be possible -- but then such administration will be directing *more production*, contrary to the interests of workers as individuals.

The natural world has an interest in *less* production (development of natural resources), for its preservation, and workers likewise have an interest in *less* production so that they can have more free time to enjoy more nature, but less productivity on the whole means less societal / civilizational *progress* and lesser societal material *integration*, worldwide. (Etc.)


210512 PoFo -- A question for our Marxists DIAGRAM

Image


Components of Social Production

Image


---
Okay, but there's no guarantee of quantities adding-up, inventory-wise, on the whole -- just *saying* 'rewards-for-labor-[time]' doesn't necessarily mean that quantities produced will properly correspond to materials consumed, because quantities-produced is apples-and-oranges in comparison to quantities-consumed, since workers individually produce at different rates, over different items, than they consume-at.

This, though, is *sloganeering* -- making promises to workers about their own labor time, without addressing how individual *claims* to social production can be adequately handled, given the total amount of *stuff* (goods and services) produced. Relying on time-for-time measurements doesn't address concrete *physical quantities* at all.

More sloganeering -- *how* is labor 'intensity' to be measured and standardized in the political economy, then?

I have to reiterate that this whole *approach* of 'rewards-for-labor', is politically problematic. though, because it effectively *commodifies* labor time, though the labor value is not privately appropriated -- it's basically the political economy of *Stalinism*, which is incrementally better than capitalism's private property relations, but is certainly not full communism or collective workers control since a separatist bureaucratic *administration* is obviously required to institutionally keep track of all of these material quantities, more-or-less in realtime.

To be blunt, I have no answer, my use of those other people's examples is only to infer the sort of direction some people propose answers but I can't say that I've gone beyond them any in considering the issue at length.
So I don't have a proposed solution and am sympathetic to the concerns you raised about how to actually combine a material individual interest with the collective. I also agree that it tends to remain in the view of implying the need for some people being the managers and record keepers.
When I read those summaries I am also concerned with how practical such a description is as it still remains extremely vague as far as I can tell.

I am even skeptical about the effort to still retain labor as a kind of value perhaps and whether it in some sense still retains the law of value.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/help/value.htm
The "labour theory of value" disappears with value itself, as soon as people stop exchanging commodities. We do not need a new theory of value. We will demonstrate our values when we can decide how to spend our time and the sooner we can decide what to do with our own time, the better. So long as we still want something in exchange, so long are we enslaved. So long as we have to spend out time doing one thing in order to get something else in exchange, so long are we enslaved.

However, It does make me think that is not the same problem existant in capitalist production also. You can directly measure much output an individual worker performs and pay them as such if you want to, but where group work can hide such individual productivity, there can be differences which may or may not be disciplined or pressured in some way. This being a point only at the local level .

But alas, no real response from me, I am at my limits and really I have overextended myself in order to paly on unfamiliar grounds in order to be forced to try and think rather than rely on stereotypical or established knowledge.

Rugoz wrote:Which means the subsistence theory of wages is wrong. Where does that leave Marxism in general?

Along with your earlier point of not considering labour-power a commodity as"it is not produced and sold competitively", might you be seeking to emphasize its distinction along with these:
https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/23317518
To classify wages as prices, labor power must be classified as a commodity. In general the critics agree on this point.
The opinion that considers labor power a commodity is a subject of lively controversy. Marx's opponents say that, if one considers labor power a commodity, one must also concede that it is a commodity that combines a group of very singular qualities:

1. In general, the merchant can divest himself of his commodities relatively easily. Labor power, on the other hand, is linked very intimately and indissolubly to its possessor, who can in no way extract it or separate it from his own person. Moreover, the owner of labor power must not only be present in the act of sale, he is also obliged to be present the whole of the time that his employer wishes to make use of it. The evaluation and utilization of value, and hence the evaluation of his own person, must be left to others. Despite the existence of the labor contract, the worker descends into a state of dependency. This finding discloses to us numerous and important differences between labor power and other commodities.

2. The buyer must go looking for commodities where a seller is to be found. The worker does not have the means to transport his commodities, that is, to transport himself to other places. Nor is he able to find out where his commodities are desired or in demand.

3. Each day a worker does not benefit from selling his labor power is for him a loss, since it cannot accumulate or store his commodity; he cannot wait for a favorable day for selling.

4. As a consequence of his unfavorable economic situation the worker is obliged, regardless of the economic conditions at the time, to sell his labor power in order not to die of hunger. Thus, by dint of circumstances, he finds himself committed to perpetual subjection. By organizing into trade unions, workers are able to change the movement of prices to their own benefit by means of strikes, collective contracts, and the like. On this basis they are able to achieve a higher living standard and cause the costs of production of labor power to increase considerably. The state is also able, through laws protecting labor, to guarantee workers a greater share of the national product.32

5. Finally, the critics point out that other commodities require an advance of funds; commodities are brought to the market by entrepreneurs in the hopes of being compensated by their sale for the capital they have disbursed in the quest of profits. In contrast, the critics demonstrate that labor power has caused no capital to be disbursed and that it is brought to the market to secure the existence of its possessor, who is not a capitalist. This situation is so special that it is truly not warranted to count the commodity "labor power" as another among commodities whose quantity can be augmented and to apply to it the same laws applied to any other commodity for the formation of prices.33

The critics draw the following conclusions from all these points: "It is only through a totally arbitrary and artificial process that labor can be included among the commodities." Marx does a true salto mortale by replacing labor power with the means of subsistence necessary to reproduce labor power.34 Since labor power differs so much from all other commodities, a theory of wages that nonetheless considers labor power a commodity, and wages the price of this commodity, must necessarily oversimplify and synthesize factual phenomena. Such a theory will be forced to disregard not only secondary influences, but also many essential things. Given these flaws, it is inevitable that the theory should depart considerably from reality. So many things must be corrected in moving from theory to practice that in the end not even the skeleton of the theory remains.

The possibility of finding a solution to real problems is all the weaker in that the items left out of account by the theory are major ones and in that this construction is so remote from reality. All these reasons make those who investigate factors determining the level of prices reluctant to qualify labor power as a commodity and consider wage as a price.

- José Manuel García Ábalos, Marx's Theory of Wages.

My concern here is that while labor-power is different in some respects, this lends support to but doesn't go far enough to actually argue that it isn't a commodity as what is left implicit is the issue of what constitutes a commodity.
This is where get into an issue of how one determines what features are crucial to the concept of a thing to which I am skeptical that those who aren't familiar with Marx's method can do as such except sporadically as formal logic can be arbitrary as it focuses on internal consistency but is external in regarding what facts are essential or not.
Spoiler: show
https://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/abstraction-abstract-labor-and-ilyenkov/
Spinoza seeks a criterion of truth inside thought itself. The genuine truth needs not to be collated with a thing, it verifies itself: veritas sui sit norma. If some architect makes an idea of building in due order, his thought is true regardless of the fact, whether the building be raised or not. On the other hand, if someone states, for example, that Peter exists, and nevertheless does not know that Peter exists, that thought is not true, even though Peter really exists [8, p. 31]. Hence, there is something real inside thought itself that differs true ideas from the false ones. That “objective essence” of idea Spinoza calls “certainty”. 2
...
For Ilyenkov, though, it was a matter not so much of novelty of fact, as a matter of its theoretical relevance. How a fact could promote the theory that is the main point. Some facts help us to penetrate into the nature of object, other facts just interfere with investigating this nature, drawing our thought away, switching it to particulars and accidentals. Even if a proposition most strictly corresponds with a fact, but the fact itself is “foreign,” inessential to the object of thought, then, within objective logic, the “truth value” of such proposition goes to zero, or rather might be a minus quantity, since it impedes cognizing the object.

https://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/abstraction-abstract-labor-and-ilyenkov/
The goal of this abstraction is to eventually identify the essential connections between different abstract aspects, slowly piecing the pieces together to give us a concrete picture of the whole. However this can only happen if we abstract correctly. There are two senses in with Marx talks of abstractions, a good and a bad way of abstracting. When abstraction has gone bad Marx often refers to the abstraction as ‘one-sided’. This means that the abstraction views an aspect of reality in an incomplete, one-sided way. An essential aspect of the nature of the object has been left out. Often Marx critiques bourgeois economists for making one-sided abstractions that make it seem like capitalism is a universal, a-historical system by abstracting away all of the historically specific aspects of capital. For instance, if we say that capital is just tools used to make more tools we have performed a sloppy, 1-sided abstraction. We are viewing capital merely from the abstract general features that capital has of increasing physical quantities of things while abstracting away the historically specific value-relations that give capitalism its essential nature.

This shows that abstraction can be arbitrary. If we are free to select one general feature over another we can radically change the concept of capital. If we choose only the ahistorical features we can make capital seem eternal. If abstraction is just seen as the identification of general features then we have no choice but to be arbitrary in our abstractions. But if abstraction is seen differently, as identifying the essential nature of an object, as identifying the “relation within which this thing is this thing” as Ilenkov puts it, then we can be scientific about our abstractions.
When we make an abstraction we want to select that aspect of the object which identifies its essence. Since the essence of things is in their relation to other things, we want to identify the essential relations which govern the object, abstracting away other non-essential aspects.

The above author follows that summary with the following:
"In calling human labor a commodity," says Strigl, we adopt the following point of view:

The commodity "labor" constitutes one of the parts of national wealth and is used in the process of production just like any other means of production. Entrepreneurs, who control the assessment of its value, use it in their economic calculations. This approach to the facts is, from a purely economic standpoint, the only justifiable approach. Of course, we do not deny that the problem of labor can be considered from other points of view. Likewise, we do not deny that, in practice, motives other than economic motives can play a very important role in social life....
Similarly, we do not accept that such notions, which do not start from the economic order, can exercise a fundamental influence on economic factors and that they are able to modify the latter in any essential way. The following argument justifies considering labor as a commodity and helps to characterize the role of labor in the totality of economic goods and their use—relations that it is incumbent on the discipline of economics to study.36
...
As a result of the growing influence of trade unions, a certain repugnance is felt toward accepting theories based on an objective value for labor power. At present, a campaign is underway directed not only against the theory of wages, but also against Marxist theory. In particular, although Marx's theory of wages does not rule out every possibility of wage increases through the efforts of professional organizations of workers, as does the wages fund theory, it nonetheless very narrowly limits these possibilities. This theory does not question the influence of political power, although it accords it only a certain importance within the limits set by economic laws. If labor power has a value, and if the price of a commodity must be adapted to its value, it may be concluded that the organization of workers into trades unions cannot improve working conditions limitlessly.

It seems to me, though I think they do a poor job explaining as much if it is the case, that one can consider non-economic facts about labor and labor-power to distinguish it but what relevance such distinctions have intreating it under a theory of price or value may be emphasizing what may be the less essential features of it. It seems a reasonable point that labour-power is conditioned by similar forces in it's value, even if one rejects value and only speaks of prices, we have talked about supply and demand in determining wages for example as one does about any other commodity.

It seems it may be a point to not consider labour-power a commodity because it isn't traded and produced and owned by a capitalist. But it seems to reflect the same relation of exchange as commodities do in capitalism in being exchanged for money i.e. wage, it just doesn't happen to be a tangible product but many commodities aren't tangible.
I guess I'm concerned what is meant to be the essential mark what a commodity is, as the commodification of labour as labour-power only reflects it's a distinction with that of slavery in production, that one does not own the person but one does own their commitment to work under the conditions of employment to the benefit of the employer in what they produce in exchange for a wage. The worker goes into the labour market to find some exchange for their skills and abilities at some task.
That it is entirely owned by the worker doesn't necessarily distinguish it as a non-commodity, as workers may own commodities also, whether for consumption or some kind of exchange.
And it most certainly is sold competitively because workers do compete for jobs, if someone gets a job, and I don't I lose out on that opportunity to earn that wage for that kind of work. If several hundred people apply for an apprenticeship as a plumber but only a handful are hired, it's hard to think that the workers weren't all competing for the same job.


I have been trying to probe further into what standing subsistence has in Marx's theory of wages, and as far as I can tell it seems to be emphasized as a limiting minimum, which some may fall below but is a logical prerequisite for labor because it secures their very existence and ability to be productive. It also seems his emphasis may be in resistance to those who would frame labor as not subject directly to market/productive forces but being a struggle of power only. As there are those who do emphasize the class struggle to the detriment that there is a limit at which wages can actually achieve. Of course, Marx would argue that the class struggle over wages primarily impacts profit by cutting into the value gained by surplus labor in the working day and doesn't necessarily impact the cost of commodities produced. It again seems to be an effort to go beyond the fluctuations of pricing based on changes in supply and demand and try to emphasize the "anchor" point at which wages maintain some stability. I don't see very tight formulations about scarcity, it seems to be more a kind of logic point and enacted in the balancing act of paying enough to actually entice people to want to work for the employer to meet their needs, because if it's too low they can't use their wage to buy what they need.
Which isn't to be reduced to only physical needs because there are social needs that are necessary in a modern economy to work.
https://sci-hub.se/https://academic.oup.com/cje/article-abstract/15/2/199/1735068?redirectedFrom=PDF
Wages are the price paid to ensure the reproduction of labour-power, but, in Marxian theory, this reproduction must be seen in both a physical and a social sense. The physical sense is simply that a mal-nourished and ill-housed worker will be unable to work for long, let alone effect the reproduction of the next generation (Marx, 1976, p. 275).J In the developed world, however, it is likely to be the institutional and social constraints which determine labour supply, and which, although Marx failed to investigate them fully, underly the 'historical and moral' element. Thus, if for some reason wages were pushed well below the value of labour-power the supply of labour-power would be curtailed—that is, fail to be socially reproduced.
...
The interpretation which I have advanced here is that an implicit answer to the problem is provided in Marx's mature works. Both wages and the value of labour-power are the object of conflict, but the powers of the combatants are ultimately subordinate to labour market conditions. The value of labour-power influences labour supply while past wages go to determine the value of labour-power. The solution to a simple dynamic model, embodying this interaction and the reserve army mechanism, appears to be consistent with the spirit of what Marx himself wrote on these matters. The significance of the value of labour-power concept is that it provides a basis along with the reserve army for the relative smoothness of the wages path and its convergence to a slowly dragging anchor point, possibly in the face of substantial changes in the overall economy. Without these concepts, there is nothing to prevent large wage fluctuations or a random wage drift. Marx considered that, as a stylised fact, wages fluctuated relatively little, compared to other variables such as the profit rate, and that what variations they had were around a point that varied hardly at all in the short run but quite substantially between countries and in the long run. His labour market concepts provided for these observations a rationale which, while not excluding long-run population dynamics, did not rely on Malthusian formulations.

The tendency being the scarcity of labor which, among other things, is determined by the size of the capital stock, e.g. "how many machines there are that must be operated by workers", and fertility. Historically the latter couldn't keep up with the former.

The scarcity of labor is an interesting dynamic now that a lot of industrialized nations require a great deal more education and skills, but we also see a lot of industries shift to third world and places where wages are incredibly low relative to the industrialized nations.
Seems that some might give emphasis to the scarcity of labor in production as the determining factor in the scarcity of resources.
https://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/law-of-value-7-production-and-exchange/
But how can we actually understand scarcity without understanding the production process? How do we compare the scarcity of coal to wood without an understanding of the fact that wood merely requires the cutting of a tree while coal requires an elaborate mining process? (How do we understand the scarcity of intellectual work without realizing that a Mozart CD can be duplicated an infinite amount of times at the click of a button while a Van Gogh can never be painted again?) Scarcity is only an inversion of production. It is the work of people that produces things in given quantities. Our “choices between scarce resources” are actually choices between different distributions of labor.

Where technological development certainly makes physical output much higher as seen in agricultural production where there seem to even be farms that require only a handful of people among the automated technology to effective farm, apparently causing even greater isolation among farmers.

Interesting you make the point of historically how machines available to be worked couldn't keep up with the number of people to labor, where it seems that we see how superfluous a lot of labor becomes soon as production is radically improved with machinery. There always being the defense that workers will simply find other jobs, but it is of course a progressive part of capitalism that automation takes over the more mundane of tasks. It is just of course a nasty effect that people can be put out of work en masse.
#15172227
I think @Unthinking Majority this video is interesting because it talks about what is possible. Especially at the end of it.

It is not scientific to think that an economic system like capitalism won't evolve and change and that a replacement system won't emerge. It goes against all of human development. There is a pattern for a change. But the conditions for newly emerging systems is always something that relies on the criteria of how humans practice economics and relationships among each other and among different nation-states.



The development of how to cope with international relations is relatively new in the world. It has a long way to go before one can say it is a system that when applied will give you predictably positive results. But? The idea again of mutually respectful and beneficial relationships is a good one. A beginning.
#15172229
Tainari88 wrote:The idea again of mutually respectful and beneficial relationships is a good one.


This goes out the door once one party has more leverage over the other. Leverage is power, and power corrupts. :)
#15172232
Rancid wrote:This goes out the door once one party has more leverage over the other. Leverage is power, and power corrupts. :)

There is also the idea that the semblance of peace comes from the outright strength of one above all others and when another is a viable competitor then conflict breaks out.
Basically peace is viewed as the temporary in between until can build up to the next conflict.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory
#15172237
Rancid wrote:This goes out the door once one party has more leverage over the other. Leverage is power, and power corrupts. :)


Spoken like a true anarchist. Hee hee.

I think having anarchists criticizing government is a good thing.

it is necessary. People think I am crazy to think that. But as a socialist you must have great critics and anarchists are critical of power. From both the right and the left.
#15172238
Wellsy wrote:There is also the idea that the semblance of peace comes from the outright strength of one above all others and when another is a viable competitor then conflict breaks out.
Basically peace is viewed as the temporary in between until can build up to the next conflict.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory


This makes complete sense.

To borrow from physics, the temporary peace between transitions of power is an unstable equilibrium point in the system. To visualize this, think of a ball at the top of a hill. The lightest gust of wind is enough to push the ball off its balanced (unstable) equilibrium at the top of the hill. Thus is comes rolling down. However, if the same ball is in valley between hills, a gust of wind will move the ball slightly, but ultimately, the ball will return to the center between the hills. This is the stable equilibrium point.

I recall reading that in the US, when one party has many seats in the house and senate, there is less grid lock and contention. There is actually more cooperation, because the party that has a firm grasp on power simply doesn't need to wield the power very much, or very aggresively. However, when there is a 50/50 split like we have now in the senate; things become more contentious and aggressive, because each side is more willing to get aggressive in an effort to grab power. This is because complete power is so close for either side to take. They just want to snatch it.

The idealist thinks the unstable equilibrium is achievable and maintainable. The realists understands that although it might be possible to hit the unstable equilibrium, the problem is, it is an ephemeral state.

Bringing this back to the CCP, because I gotta get my CCP bashing in. This is why we see them getting more aggressive. They are getting closer and closer to seizing global power. Humans, have a habit of pressing harder on the throats of prey the closer to death that prey is. Expect the CCP to get more aggressive, not less.
#15172243
Rancid wrote:This makes complete sense.

To borrow from physics, the temporary peace between transitions of power is an unstable equilibrium point in the system. To visualize this, think of a ball at the top of a hill. The lightest gust of wind is enough to push the ball off its balanced (unstable) equilibrium at the top of the hill. Thus is comes rolling down. However, if the same ball is in valley between hills, a gust of wind will move the ball slightly, but ultimately, the ball will return to the center between the hills. This is the stable equilibrium point.

I recall reading that in the US, when one party has many seats in the house and senate, there is less grid lock and contention. There is actually more cooperation, because the party that has a firm grasp on power simply doesn't need to wield the power very much, or very aggresively. However, when there is a 50/50 split like we have now in the senate; things become more contentious and aggressive, because each side is more willing to get aggressive in an effort to grab power. This is because complete power is so close for either side to take. They just want to snatch it.

The idealist thinks the unstable equilibrium is achievable and maintainable. The realists understands that although it might be possible to hit the unstable equilibrium, the problem is, it is an ephemeral state.

Bringing this back to the CCP, because I gotta get my CCP bashing in. This is why we see them getting more aggressive. They are getting closer and closer to seizing global power. Humans, have a habit of pressing harder on the throats of prey the closer to death that prey is. Expect the CCP to get more aggressive, not less.

One alternative to your take on the CCP is that they’re focused on domestic control/stability.
https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15172181#p15172181
#15172244
Wellsy wrote:
I am even skeptical about the effort to still retain labor as a kind of value perhaps and whether it in some sense still retains the law of value.



https://www.marxists.org/reference/subj ... /value.htm

The "labour theory of value" disappears with value itself, as soon as people stop exchanging commodities. We do not need a new theory of value. We will demonstrate our values when we can decide how to spend our time and the sooner we can decide what to do with our own time, the better. So long as we still want something in exchange, so long are we enslaved. So long as we have to spend out time doing one thing in order to get something else in exchange, so long are we enslaved.



Doesn't this strike you as being *moralistic*, though?

I'm finding revolutionary theory to be sorely lacking when it comes to addressing dynamics of the *material world* -- your concern is easily answerable with the reply of 'use values' (from collectivized production), and the treatment you included indicts *political economy* itself, in its entirety, implying perhaps a family-farm-type of backwards subsistence-type farming, all for the sake of eschewing material-economic relations altogether, just to be on the 'safe' side, or something.

I do agree with the author that the economy doesn't have to be *exchanges*-based -- it *could* be free-access and direct-distribution -- but the whole position really seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


Wellsy wrote:
However, It does make me think that is not the same problem existant in capitalist production also. You can directly measure much output an individual worker performs and pay them as such if you want to, but where group work can hide such individual productivity, there can be differences which may or may not be disciplined or pressured in some way. This being a point only at the local level .



Okay, sure, this is a valid point that the dictatorship-of-the-proletariat / workers state may not need to be as *granular* in its political-economy measurements and tracking as the Western imperialist capitalist reductionist tradition happens to be, especially regarding the commodification of labor.

You mentioned the Stakhanovite movement earlier, which is fair, historically successful, and probably appropriate for any kind of proto-collectivist organization, like that of a workers state, versus the bourgeoisie. I just mean to say that such should be seen as *strategic*, and not as a desired end, or political economy, in and of itself. It's beyond me, of course, to suggest how a post-capitalist, post-revolution fully communist society would collectively organize its own production, but I like to think that much industrial automation would be involved -- 'Fully Automated Luxury Communism'.
#15172247
Wellsy wrote:One alternative to your take on the CCP is that they’re focused on domestic control/stability.
viewtopic.php?p=15172181#p15172181



I saw that post. I plan to watch the video later tonight after the kids are in bed.

Without watching it, I'm sure this is a valid alternative explanation. The part that I lack info on, is the understand of what's actually going on inside China and inside the CCP leadership. My ideas/thoughts expressed is based on what we see from the outside. :)
#15172252
Pants-of-dog wrote:Almost none of this is true.

Most Chileans that left in the diaspora did so because they were political refugees and exiles. They had no choice. They could leave or die.

Canada did not accept refugees from Chile, because they were leftists. Saskatchewan had an NDP government at the time (a political party that grew out of the labour movement) and accepted many refugees.

Most Chileans could not return until the end of the dictatorship. And by then, most had lives in the rest of the world and we simply cannot afford to live in both places since we are not independently wealthy.

So, to dismiss all of this and simply assume it is solely a whimsical decision to make a bit more cash is, to say the least, reductionist to a fault.

I understand the dynamics. Why do so many refugees worldwide flee to capitalist liberal democracies? Why did they or Chileans not flee to the USSR, Maoist China, Cuba etc.? I assume 2 reasons: 1. they'd rather go to the most economically prosperous countries possible that also support them with social programs like free healthcare. Even a refugee claimant in Canada gets free healthcare the moment they submit a claim no matter the validity of the claim, and 2. these communist countries generally don't like accepting refugees because they're far more racist and far less compassionate than capitalist liberal democracies.

Yes, it is as if the rich can use their economic leverage to dictate social norms. Hmmmm.

In the USA yes thats true in many cases. Canada not nearly as much, hence popular socialist programs like universal healthcare.

Since you seem so scientifically minded rigt now, please provide a scientific explanation for your argument that capitalism is the best we can do.

I never made that claim, I made the claim that a mixed system of capitalism, robust state regulation, and socialized programs (healthcare, education etc) within a democratic government (like Nordic countries) is the best system humans have so far discovered. The evidence is based on all sorts of statistics where the Nordic countries and similar consistently rank at the top in things like incomes per capita, income equality, poverty, healthcare and health outcomes, crime, education etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

Despite it's wealth and very high income per capita the US isn't at the top because of these and similar indexes because they're too neoliberal domestically and where wealth concentrates at the top while the poor and middle class get ignored and things like healthcare and education is highly privatized for profit.

This is all to say that too much privatization is a bad, as is too much public nationalization, and that's born out in the stats throughout the 20th and 21st century. The ideal so far has been a middle-road somewhere between those extremes, and it's the same case in the global south: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_state
#15172254
I get why people in developing countries are sympathetic to Marxism, because these are the less powerful countries that are often exploited. But you don't need communism to prevent foreign exploitation if you're a poor country, you need a strong government to help guide the economy ie: regulation and to also control capital flows to prevent foreign capital exploitation from happening, as well as government social programs to help the people like healthcare and education.

Cuba doesn't need to be communist to throttle foreign corporations from exploiting it, it just needs a strong government and strong institutions to regulate the economy, and it doesn't need communism to have universal healthcare and education. Canada and France have socialized universal healthcare.
#15172256
Unthinking Majority wrote:I understand the dynamics. Why do so many refugees worldwide flee to capitalist liberal democracies? Why did they or Chileans not flee to the USSR, Maoist China, Cuba etc.?


Many of them did. That is one of the things about being a refugee: you often do not have a choice.

I assume 2 reasons: 1. they'd rather go to the most economically prosperous countries possible that also support them with social programs like free healthcare. Even a refugee claimant in Canada gets free healthcare the moment they submit a claim no matter the validity of the claim, and 2. these communist countries generally don't like accepting refugees because they're far more racist and far less compassionate than capitalist liberal democracies.


You seem to be making two assumptions:

1, Refugees get to pick where they go.
2, Socialist countries did not accept refugees.

Neither seems to be correct,

In the USA yes thats true in many cases. Canada not nearly as much, hence popular socialist programs like universal healthcare.


The fight for public healthcare in Canada took decades and was opposed by doctors, the owners of private hospitals, medical associations, drug companies, insurance companies, and other people who were getting rich off it.

In fact, some of these groups still try and roll it back.

So, it is historically accurate to say that the people who profit from the status quo will use said profits to stop any change.

I never made that claim, I made the claim that a mixed system of capitalism, robust state regulation, and socialized programs (healthcare, education etc) within a democratic government (like Nordic countries) is the best system humans have so far discovered. The evidence is based on all sorts of statistics where the Nordic countries and similar consistently rank at the top in things like incomes per capita, income equality, poverty, healthcare and health outcomes, crime, education etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

Despite it's wealth and very high income per capita the US isn't at the top because of these and similar indexes because they're too neoliberal domestically and where wealth concentrates at the top while the poor and middle class get ignored and things like healthcare and education is highly privatized for profit.

This is all to say that too much privatization is a bad, as is too much public nationalization, and that's born out in the stats throughout the 20th and 21st century. The ideal so far has been a middle-road somewhere between those extremes, and it's the same case in the global south: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_state


This is not a scientific analysis.

This is a very shallow sociological analysis that ignores history and other factors.

One thing you are not doing, for example, is isolating variables. So you are assuming that the current ideological framework of the countries is responsible for their current level of development; i.e. this is the only variable that you think is significant.

But the current level of development is due to past socio-economic conditions. Os it would make more sense to assume that current levels of development and ideological frameworks are correlated and are both caused by certain historical similarities.

Like benefiting from the colonial era, to name one factor.
#15172257
Tainari88 wrote:The development of how to cope with international relations is relatively new in the world. It has a long way to go before one can say it is a system that when applied will give you predictably positive results. But? The idea again of mutually respectful and beneficial relationships is a good one. A beginning.

That's always the goal, but how do we achieve it is the real question?

The reason we have war and exploitation is because there are no enforceable international laws. There's no global government or global police force to stop any country from doing bad things to other countries. The international system is anarchic (anarchy, meaning no overarching political authority), which creates never-ending competition for power and security and control among countries because all live in fear of everyone else. This is not my theory, this is basic international relations theory:

  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 20

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]