Theory of Conceptual-Commodity-Value-Management

[alanjjohnstone]

The Origins and the Mechanics of the Theory of Conceptual-Commodity-Value-Management

Not the first time and not the last time that i will require the knowledge of fellow member in understanding economics/philosophy.

What is this article all about in simple layman's language and how does it impact upon our own interpretation of Marcin economics. What importance is this theory to Marxism and for ourselves

What Nietzche has got to do with understanding Labour Theory of Value, i have no idea and throwing in a few quotes from him doesn't really illuminate me.

I await your assistance

[alanjjohnstone]

Many thanks for your explanation but sadly i found it just as difficult to follow as the original article. I'm just a simple wee soul with a limited education…I was hoping for something that i could understand but i am sure others will be able to appreciate your erudite and detailed answer. 

[twc]

The author is a mixed-media abstract artist https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=G1NfBr-XzKQ.His “The Structural-Anarchism Manifesto:  (The Logic of Structural-Anarchism versus The Logic of Capitalism)” is available from Amazon in paperback.This manifesto is published in faux impoverished 1970s typewriter format of the kind that flourished in the economic gap between the demise of hot-metal typography and its transcendence by computer-based typesetting.

Quote:

“This book explores the complications and the complexities of the basic fact that we are increasingly living within the confines of a disciplinary surveillance society.  The assumption is that surveillance and discipline is now total and their mechanisms never attain the light of public knowledge and scrutiny.  As a society, western democracies have moved beyond democracy into a new socio-economic formation, the framework of the soft-totalitarian-state, i.e. democratic-totalitarianism.”

For him, capitalism has moved beyond its classical era whose adequate conception was the political economy that Marx critiqued.Why?  Because he perceives values are now going down while prices are now going up.  Marx is passé.Instead he proposes ‘conceptual-commodity-value-management’ as the new adequate conception to comprehend our new post-classical capitalist socio-economic formation of the ‘soft-totalitarian-state’, as he conceives capitalism now functions, or fails to function.[His claim that we have entered a new capitalist socio-economic formation mirrors, and probably gains inspiration from, David Harvey’s assertion that money capital has come to dominate industrial capital since the 1970s, and we’ve entered what Harvey merely terms a ‘new capitalist era’ called “neo-liberalism”—i.e. liberalism for the money capitalists.]In any case, our author still adopts the familiar Marxian categories of value and surplus-value only to annihilate them—to trounce them—just as Prof. Samuelson did 40 years ago with his celebrated Marxian razor in the same socio-economic formation that we, not-up-to-date hidebound, socialists continue to call basically unchanged ‘capitalism’.He claims that the familiar Marxian categories have long since lost their objectivity.  Everything is subjective and relative now.This universal dominance of subjectivity and relativity is, interestingly, taken as objective self-criticism of old capitalism by itself.It seems that familiar old capitalism managed to turn the objectivity of its universal economic categories inside-out, or upside-down, into the relative subjectivity of a few—their own privileged subjectivity—and so create our new terrifying socio-economic formation of the soft-totalitarian-state.In such a subjectively governed world, the materialist conception of history flies out the window.  Forget the social base, it is the tyrannical social superstructure of subjective relative thought that now determines what capitalism is and does!Plekhanov took his famous monist stance against the 19th century neo-kantians who similarly advocated their analogous version of such a thought-controlled world.Before him, so too did the great 18th century French philosophes (whom Plekhanov deeply studied as Marxian forerunners).  Thus Diderot and his fellow encyclopedists opposed their own 18th materialism to the late-feudal, totally analogous, idealist version that “opinion governs the world”.In our times of the soft-totalitarian state, our structural-anarchist author confronts us with his analogous conception that state-manufactured opinion pervades and tyrannizes our new post-capitalist socio-economic formation, before which the Marxian categories are impotent.What then, if anything, are we to make of our author’s subjectively determined non-Marxian value if it’s anything other than plain old neoclassical monopolist cartel price?So, as Marxian value flies out the window, ad rem…The theory of conceptual-commodity-value-management is founded on the ‘idea’ that the Marxian categories of value and surplus-value:are subjectiveare inherently arbitraryare independent of Marx’s labour power—i.e. now have nothing to do with how much labor-time is objectified in a commodityare ‘reified’ subjectively—i.e. established by decree—by network- and/or group-formationsare ‘stabilized’ and ‘standardized’—i.e. managed and controlled—by subjective manipulation and estimationall in accordance with money capital’s network and/or group common self-interests and self-image.

Quote:

in reality, price, value and surplus-value are increasingly based on what someone will pay for a commodity and/or service etc., and what the sellers and middle men think is fair market value in their own minds.  Consequently, these arbitrary prices and values are socially constructed through government institutions, branding, fashion trends, supply and demand manipulations, network-formations, cartels and/or the media, etc.

The point about Nietzsche…Our author takes that hurt and disillusioned philosopher for an apostle in the genealogy of subjectivity-and-relativity—as mercurial Nietzschean thoughts that helped the capitalist class tighten its stranglehold on society.And so, by idealist argument, our structural-anarchist author proves to his satisfaction that Marxian categories cannot explain the state.And this is what sustains his anarchist faith in tyrannical [Nietzschean] subjectivity-and-relativity as the modern social force, i.e. as the modern social determinant.

[twc]

Sorry, AlanI chose to ‘fight’ like-with-like.  Our author is an interesting fellow…He’s clearly a creative spirit, an abstract painter, an anarchist who’s hurling a manifesto at the world.His politics suggest that, for us, he is not comfortably submitting to our Marxian Object and Declaration of Principles which, for him, have no relevance in his changed [post]capitalist world in which the soft-totalitarian state governs us all by conceptual-commodity-value-management.It’s hard to miss the irony in his manifesto’s overt idealism (soft, cf. software) having the effect of ‘softening’ his assault on the state to ‘merely’ the soft-totalitarian one.

[twc]

Alan, perhaps the following may help…His economic subjective-relative claims are analogous to those of the money crank who claims that bankers can create value at the stroke of a pen, or of a keyboard.The phenomenon that value and price diverge is fundamental to the market.  It is what must be explained.  Marx solves the paradox in Vol. 3.It ill behoves someone who claims that value is subjective to confidently pontificate on its objective magnitude.  In practice, iPhones would be a lot pricier if their value were calculated in US labour power, which is objectively why they are produced in China.  Rational subjectivity follows objectivity.

[alanjjohnstone]

Much better, twcWe have to keep our arguments as simple as possible for the numpties like me to comprehendThe overly-complicated stuff can be kept for the universities…oops…i hope LBird doesn't spot that. When i want a definition  of a word, i'm not interested in its whole etymology, but i will accept some discussion on the context and synonyms so that the application is correct, but that's all. Point 2 …Will that be all about the transformation problem? i always keep hearing about being debated. I usually go into a glazed eye trance when it is being explained and stare out the window. 

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

We have to keep our arguments as simple as possible for the numpties like me to comprehendThe overly-complicated stuff can be kept for the universities…oops…i hope LBird doesn't spot that.

It's not that the arguments aren't (or can't be made) simple as possible, alan, but the fact that you won't accept them.It's not your 'numptism' that's the problem, but your ideology, which you refuse to address.It's like explaining the difference between Marx's 'idealism-materialism' and Engels' 'materialism' can be summed up as the contrasting methods of:'theory and practice' (idealism-materialism), and'practice and theory' (materialism).That's not 'overly-complicated stuff', but is 'as simple as possible'.As I've said, the problem is the issue of which ideology one follows.However, the central sticking-point is that 'materialism' pretends to not be an 'ideology', but is apparently just a simple process of 'individuals' using their 'biological touch' to tell them, as individuals, what 'material' is. Clearly, given this ideology, its adherents (like you) can just relax, sit back, leave the 'theory' to 'the universities', and just get on with 'doing stuff' (practice), which isn't dependent upon one's preceding 'theory' (because 'theory' supposedly follows 'practice', for 'materialism').What's even clearer (well, to those who are prepared to think a little) is that it's glaringly obvious that any ideology that starts from 'individual biological senses' is the one that is entirely suited to the 'market', in which isolated individuals make 'value' decisions, based upon their own estimation of the 'worth' of a commodity (and they don't need to worry about 'theory', like Marx's notions of 'exploitation' and socially-produced 'value', which help explain 'practice' in our society).'Materialism' is a central pillar of bourgeois ideology, but for those like you, alan, who are determined not to examine their own ideology, this all remains 'university stuff'. One's 'theory' remains completely unexamined, and is given to one unaware, by someone else who is aware of the need for prior 'theory' (for a 'special few' anyway, hence the links between 'materialism' and Leninism, and materialism's fundamentally anti-democratic stance).[quote-ajj]I usually go into a glazed eye trance when it is being explained and stare out the window.[/quote]Back to 'glazed eye trance' mode, eh, alan? Like the rest of the SPGB, by all accounts.Put simply, 'matter' is 'property': the reflection of social production in physics, a 'substance' that cannot be voted upon, because it is not a socio-historical product, but an 'Eternal Truth': 'Private Property' in 'nature'.

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

 The theory of conceptual-commodity-value-management is founded on the ‘idea’ that the Marxian categories of value and surplus-value:are subjectiveare inherently arbitraryare independent of Marx’s labour power—i.e. now have nothing to do with how much labor-time is objectified in a commodityare ‘reified’ subjectively—i.e. established by decree—by network- and/or group-formationsare ‘stabilized’ and ‘standardized’—i.e. managed and controlled—by subjective manipulation and estimationall in accordance with money capital’s network and/or group common self-interests and self-image.

 The problem is that there is almost bound to be a subjective aspect to the labour theory of value and the Marxian categories of value and surplus value which is not the same thing as advancing a purely subjective theory of value as per marginalist economic theory which takes as its point of departure use value or utility.  The subjective – objective dichotomy is a false one. Socially necessary labour time is not something you can "objectively" measure with a stopwatch.  It is a theoretical construct.  For instance there is the problem of the heterogeneity of labour – different grades not to mention kinds of labour (unskilled , semi silked and skilled)  and their relaltive contribution to the product. How do you measure this relative contribution in each case. Marx got round the problem by simply ignoring it, saying that skilled labour was a multiple of unskilled labour- a reasonable supposition but it does not explain by how much precisely skilled labour is supposed  to be more productive than unskilled labour, or a doctor than a strucutural engineer.  We can only guess.  And is indeed subjective values that help to inform our guesstimates Ironically for all the nonsense that is written about the labour theory of value by its critics in mainstream economics, the capitalist class itself falls back on a kind of bastardised labour theory to justify its own existence.  A three hour lunch break by entrepreneurs gorging on lobster and quaffing Champagne and "discussing business" is reckoned to be well worth the "effort"  expended and justifies the grotesque differentials in the compensation package they receive vis-a-vis what shopfloor workers receive by way of a wage.  A difference in the order of magnitude of several hundred fold in dollars or pounds per unit of time. It is difficult to see how this not a subjective evaluation of the worth of their contribution by the capitalists which we, in the same vein, repudiate

[twc]

Alan, Andrew Kliman proved there is no transformation problem.LBird, I wonder if you even know what’s going on.Robbo, ultimately value collapses into money  M — C — M′.  Sure estimation is integral to the phenomenon, as price, but it isn’t the essence of the process of valorisation.  The bourgeoisie are at liberty to do whatever they please with their slice of the social surplus.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

LBird, I wonder if you even knows what’s going on.

Oh, I 'knows' alright, twc.Your sub-Leninist mystification of 'materialism' is, ironically, clear for all to see.Not even your fellow-Party members can follow your 'explanations', much less can other workers.This is the problem with 'materialism': it pretends to be about 'matter', but it also insists that only 'elite experts' can tell just what 'matter' actually is – otherwise, 'materialists' would let workers have a vote on what matter 'is', but that's the last thing they will allow.That's the thing about Marx, twc, he was a democrat.We've covered this issue so many times that it's become clear to all, even the membership, that the SPGB won't have workers voting on their production.

[alanjjohnstone]

Let's be fair, LBird,  i frequently told you i couldn't follow your explanations, either, so no calling the kettle black

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

 Robbo, ultimately value collapses into money  M — C — M′.  Sure estimation is integral to the phenomenon, as price, but it isn’t the essence of the process of valorisation.  The bourgeoisie are at liberty to do whatever they please with their slice of the social surplus.

 I am not quite sure what this means or how it connects with my earlier comment.  Can you explain?  To me it doesn't make much sense to talk of valorisation without this entailing a subjective aspect.  If socially necessary labour time is basis of value then you have he problem of how to differentiate between different kinds of labour inputs and their differential contribution to the value of a commodity. To some extent this must surely be a matter of interpretation and subjective judgment.  There is no way of measuring objectively how much more productive a doctor is than, say, a nurse  – that is to say their respective contributions to the commoditiy in question assuming healthcare is a commodity in this instance

[moderator1]

Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

There is no way of measuring objectively how much more productive a doctor is than, say, a nurse  – that is to say their respective contributions to the commoditiy in question assuming healthcare is a commodity in this instance

Probably naive of me but isn't that determined from socially necessary labour time…the training…experience …invested into the doctor…10 minutes of a consultant's  time is equal to half an hour of a junior doctor's time which is valued at an hour of  nurse's time etc etc I guess that too is a complex determination but i don't think it is subjective…a computer could work it out if fed in the requisite details.A doctor diagnoses and a nurse tends …i think i can be objective about who is the more productive in creating the commodity of healthy cured patients…but being a bit simplistic again, i am sure 

[Bijou Drains]

The subjective bit, presumably, comes from how we determine what is socially necessary labour time.. If your the immobilised patient in bed no2 dying for a crap, the usefulness of the consultant, who is going to examine your dandruff, might be less than the nurse with the bed pan!

[Author]

Posts