Origina of Value - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Discourse exclusively on the basis of historical materialist methodology.
Forum rules: No one line posts please. This forum is for discussion based on Marxism, Marxism-Leninism and similar revisions. Critique of topics not based on historical materialism belongs in the general Communism forum.
User avatar
By Wellsy
#15326564
Truth To Power wrote:No, only the people who disagree with me are wrong. That is why I am always able to prove them wrong.

How many more times, and in how many more different ways, would I have to prove you wrong before you would become willing to know the fact that you actually are wrong?




Yes TtP, everyone else is wrong.

Do go on about how overproduction is impossible like Say’s Law suggests. Do continue to explain how land rent is the true and only source of exploitation.
Maybe you’ll convince someone on here reading.
User avatar
By Hakeer
#15326571
Truth To Power wrote:No, the sentences you write that I don't take issue with have some finite probability of being right. When I take issue with a sentence, I prove it is wrong, and that is why you can be sure it actually is wrong.


It is a frosty day in hell when I write a sentence you don’t contrive a reason to dispute.

By the way, you never did tell me whether you are a hypocritical “evil parasite” who owns land. I wonder why?
#15326574
Wellsy wrote:Yes TtP, everyone else is wrong.

I just got finished correcting that false claim.
Do go on about how overproduction is impossible like Say’s Law suggests.

<yawn> What would general overproduction even look like? It has never been observed in reality, not even close. The crises of capitalism are all about money and debt, never "overproduction." Marx was the Anti-Economist, and had nothing informative to say on economics because he had not even the slightest understanding of the subject.
Do continue to explain how land rent is the true and only source of exploitation.

<yawn> That is just another fabrication from you. There are lots of kinds of exploitation, but as I have stated many times, privilege -- of which private landowning is by far the most important form -- is the source of institutionalized exploitation because it systematically violates everyone's rights without just compensation. Marxism-socialism merely consists in blaming the factory owner for what the landowner does to the worker.
Maybe you’ll convince someone on here reading.

Only those who are open to fact and logic (which does not include Marxists).
#15326575
Hakeer wrote:It is a frosty day in hell when I write a sentence you don’t contrive a reason to dispute.

It's true that you contrive to write reliably false ones, but there are many I have not taken issue with.
By the way, you never did tell me whether you are a hypocritical “evil parasite” who owns land. I wonder why?

Do you? I can tell you why: just write two answers, one for if I own land, one for if I don't. You might find that that exercise tells you more about yourself than the information you request would tell you about me.
User avatar
By Hakeer
#15326577
Truth To Power wrote:It's true that you contrive to write reliably false ones, but there are many I have not taken issue with.

Do you? I can tell you why: just write two answers, one for if I own land, one for if I don't. You might find that that exercise tells you more about yourself than the information you request would tell you about me.


LOL You contrived a way to avoid a yes/no answer.
#15326590
Hakeer wrote:LOL You contrived a way to avoid a yes/no answer.

<yawn> Apologists for landowner greed, privilege and parasitism have been asking me that question for over 30 years, and their intention is always the same: it's just a dishonest way to avoid the issue of principles by making it all about me personally. The thing is, over those 30 years, my situation has changed: I've been both a tenant and a landlord at various times, and I have learned that apologists for landowner privilege always attack me personally, no matter which one I am. If I am a landlord, they call me a hypocrite; if I am a tenant, they say I am just envious of landowners. So I'm not going to tell you which I am now until you have gone through the exercise I gave you.

How will you attack me personally if I own land? ________________________________

How will you attack me personally if I don't? ___________________________________

Answer those two questions and I will answer yours.
#15326609
Truth To Power wrote:How will you attack me personally if I own land? ________________________________

How will you attack me personally if I don't? ___________________________________

Answer those two questions and I will answer yours.

Oh, and if you decline to answer those questions, that will tell you all you need to know about yourself.
User avatar
By Hakeer
#15326613
Truth To Power wrote:Oh, and if you decline to answer those questions, that will tell you all you need to know about yourself.


If you do own land, that makes you an “evil parasite”.

If you don’t, I won’t “attack” you on this. Promise.

OK, now answer yes/no.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15326615
@Truth To Power

Given I had the power ...

If you were a landlord, I'd confiscate your properties (no compensation) and convert them to social housing.

If you own your own house, you can keep it until you die, and then it will be turned over for social housing.

If you were a tenant, you'd still be a tenant. But in government-owned housing paying a fair rent covering the cost of water, electricity, gas, and maintenance, with a small sum set aside to build more social housing.


:)


Note: All utilities will be nationalised without compensation.
#15326623
Hakeer wrote:If you do own land, that makes you an “evil parasite”.

If you don’t, I won’t “attack” you on this. Promise.

OK, now answer yes/no.

I don't own any land right now -- but it's because I believe it is a bad time to own in my area, that in the next few years prices will drop, and I will get back into the market and may even be a landlord again.
#15326624
ingliz wrote:@Truth To Power

Given I had the power ...

If you were a landlord, I'd confiscate your properties (no compensation) and convert them to social housing.

Ah. So your idea is that that would encourage private companies to invest more money in building housing, so that it can be confiscated?

Seems to me that was tried a few times before.
If you own your own house, you can keep it until you die, and then it will be turned over for social housing.

What if I sell or give it to a younger person before I die?
If you were a tenant, you'd still be a tenant. But in government-owned housing paying a fair rent covering the cost of water, electricity, gas, and maintenance, with a small sum set aside to build more social housing.

And who decides who gets to live in which social housing...?

Oh, wait a minute, of course, how silly of me: you.

All socialists seek irresponsible power over their betters.
Note: All utilities will be nationalised without compensation.

I see: like all socialists and capitalists, you can't tell the difference between owning what you created and owning other people's rights to liberty. Simple.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15326626
Truth To Power wrote:Ah. So your idea is that that would encourage private companies to invest more money in building housing

Companies would be encouraged to seek government contracts to build social housing.

What if I sell or give it to a younger person before I die?

If you sell it, you will be taxed at the selling price or a fair market valuation, whichever is higher. It will automatically become social housing and the new 'owner' will pay a fair rent to the government.

If you give it away, it will automatically become social housing and the new 'owner' will pay a fair rent to the government.

And who decides who gets to live in which social housing...?

The housing authority will allocate dwellings according to need.


;)
User avatar
By Hakeer
#15326632
Truth To Power wrote:I don't own any land right now -- but it's because I believe it is a bad time to own in my area, that in the next few years prices will drop, and I will get back into the market and may even be a landlord again.


Do you feel any guilt about being an “evil parasite” and “rent seeker”?
#15326633
ingliz wrote:Companies would be encouraged to seek government contracts to build social housing.

So private building would be prohibited, and companies with friends in government would be overpaid at taxpayer expense for cutting corners and building inferior and unsafe housing. Check.
If you sell it, you will be taxed at the selling price or a fair market valuation, whichever is higher. It will automatically become social housing and the new 'owner' will pay a fair rent to the government.

Or it might just get burned down.
If you give it away, it will automatically become social housing and the new 'owner' will pay a fair rent to the government.

Or it might just get burned down.
The housing authority will allocate dwellings according to need.

And the friends of the housing authority are known to have so much greater need for the best housing....

Like all socialists and capitalists, you refuse to know the difference between owning the fruits of your labor and owning what no one's labor ever produced.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15326635
Truth To Power wrote:Or it might just get burned down.

Arson is a crime typically carrying a custodial sentence of 8 years or more. And as those who do no work do not eat, you will serve your sentence in a work camp.


:)
#15326636
Hakeer wrote:Do you feel any guilt about being an “evil parasite” and “rent seeker”?

We all have to play by the rules that are imposed on us by force. That doesn't mean we necessarily think they are fair, or that if we know they are unfair, we are obliged to refrain from taking advantage of them. Like many privileges, the institution of private landowning makes us all victims. But those of us who have owned land are also perpetrators. I have no choice about being a victim, but it's a role that does not suit my personality. The spirit of resistance to injustice is too strong in me; I want to get some of my own back. I also have a strong competitive urge, a desire to prove I can play the game better than others.

Consider the analogy of slavery: there were plenty of good people who owned slaves, like Thomas Jefferson. But he did not defend slavery. He knew it was evil, and although he owned slaves until the day he died, he opposed the institution. His private correspondence shows that he felt some moral conflict over it, which led him to rationalize not freeing his own slaves: he opined that they were too accustomed to servitude, and would not know how to look after themselves if they were freed. The worst of it is, there was some truth in that. Many (especially older) slaves had great difficulty adjusting to emancipation and being responsible for themselves, just as many people in the former socialist "republics" of the USSR had great difficulty adjusting to a market-based capitalist economy and being responsible for their own economic situations.

Other slave owners, like Aristotle -- whom I think was likely a good man -- rationalized slavery on the grounds that some people are better off as slaves because they are naturally servile, and having an owner will at least ensure someone looks after them as valuable assets. I've known a few people like that.

So do you think an abolitionist who owns slaves, like Jefferson, is more or less credible than one who does not? Apply the same principle to geoists, many of whom do own land.
#15326637
ingliz wrote:Arson is a crime typically carrying a custodial sentence of 8 years or more.

<yawn> There are lots of other ways to render one's property unusable by thieves. Just pour water all over the floors and walls, close the place up, and go on vacation. In a few weeks, mold will have made it uninhabitable.
And as those who do no work do not eat, you will serve your sentence in a work camp.

So the elderly and disabled go to the gulag. Thought so.
User avatar
By Hakeer
#15326638
Truth To Power wrote:We all have to play by the rules that are imposed on us by force. That doesn't mean we necessarily think they are fair, or that if we know they are unfair, we are obliged to refrain from taking advantage of them. Like many privileges, the institution of private landowning makes us all victims. But those of us who have owned land are also perpetrators. I have no choice about being a victim, but it's a role that does not suit my personality. The spirit of resistance to injustice is too strong in me; I want to get some of my own back. I also have a strong competitive urge, a desire to prove I can play the game better than others.

Consider the analogy of slavery: there were plenty of good people who owned slaves, like Thomas Jefferson. But he did not defend slavery. He knew it was evil, and although he owned slaves until the day he died, he opposed the institution. His private correspondence shows that he felt some moral conflict over it, which led him to rationalize not freeing his own slaves: he opined that they were too accustomed to servitude, and would not know how to look after themselves if they were freed. The worst of it is, there was some truth in that. Many (especially older) slaves had great difficulty adjusting to emancipation and being responsible for themselves, just as many people in the former socialist "republics" of the USSR had great difficulty adjusting to a market-based capitalist economy and being responsible for their own economic situations.

Other slave owners, like Aristotle -- whom I think was likely a good man -- rationalized slavery on the grounds that some people are better off as slaves because they are naturally servile, and having an owner will at least ensure someone looks after them as valuable assets. I've known a few people like that.

So do you think an abolitionist who owns slaves, like Jefferson, is more or less credible than one who does not? Apply the same principle to geoists, many of whom do own land.


From your perspective, you are taking back some of the money evil parasites have taken from you, and you are doing it by exploiting people who can only afford to rent rather than get in the land owning business themselves. This is a choice you made. Are you saying you feel no guilt when you think of it this way?
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15326643
Truth To Power wrote:We all have to play by the rules that are imposed on us by force. That doesn't mean we necessarily think they are fair, or that if we know they are unfair, we are obliged to refrain from taking advantage of them. Like many privileges, the institution of private landowning makes us all victims. But those of us who have owned land are also perpetrators. I have no choice about being a victim, but it's a role that does not suit my personality. The spirit of resistance to injustice is too strong in me; I want to get some of my own back. I also have a strong competitive urge, a desire to prove I can play the game better than others.

Consider the analogy of slavery: there were plenty of good people who owned slaves, like Thomas Jefferson. But he did not defend slavery. He knew it was evil, and although he owned slaves until the day he died, he opposed the institution. His private correspondence shows that he felt some moral conflict over it, which led him to rationalize not freeing his own slaves: he opined that they were too accustomed to servitude, and would not know how to look after themselves if they were freed. The worst of it is, there was some truth in that. Many (especially older) slaves had great difficulty adjusting to emancipation and being responsible for themselves, just as many people in the former socialist "republics" of the USSR had great difficulty adjusting to a market-based capitalist economy and being responsible for their own economic situations.

Other slave owners, like Aristotle -- whom I think was likely a good man -- rationalized slavery on the grounds that some people are better off as slaves because they are naturally servile, and having an owner will at least ensure someone looks after them as valuable assets. I've known a few people like that.

So do you think an abolitionist who owns slaves, like Jefferson, is more or less credible than one who does not? Apply the same principle to geoists, many of whom do own land.

If other people do it they’re evil parasites, but if you do it it’s okay, because Jefferson. Awesome. 8)
User avatar
By Wellsy
#15326659
I’ve seen talk of the immanent measure of value being abstract labor or socially necessary labor time where the qualitative differences of labor are ignored and labored is treated as something which is the same and thus cardinal measurement is possible.

But to the thread subject, when production is for the production of commodities, this abstract labor is assumed.
Value is produced and exchange just realizes this value in money form.
[url]digamo.free.fr/shaikh82.pdf[/url]
I lean towards value being potential and having to be realized but not creates in exchange. It seems intuitive that value being created in production is part of why Marx is able to distinguish between surplus value in production and that it isn’t creates in exchange otherwise value would likely not diverge and just be price rather than an immanent quality of laboring for commodities. Sure one can emphasize value not realized or deemed socially necessary for lack of exchange but without a pre-existing value, to be realized it wouldn’t exchange at a set price. Market exchange is presupposed and necessary, but it isn’t the basis of creating exchange except to a mercantilist view of value through unequal exchange.
But exchange only moves values around and isn’t the source of new value/wealth on the whole.

Even when price and value are equal, it still requires a transformation of value to its external measure/form of money and thus transforms the commodities value for exchange.
Last edited by Wellsy on 08 Oct 2024 14:29, edited 3 times in total.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

https://twitter.com/Megatron_ron/status/185443229[…]

Enshitification is coming for a highway near you.

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2024/11/trump-victory-[…]