Theory of Conceptual-Commodity-Value-Management

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/10/the-origins-and-the-mechanics-of-the-theory-of-conceptual-commodity-value-management/#more-64334Not 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 ourselvesWhat 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

@alanJohnstone,I loved the article and I believe I understood it.  But to explain it better, It needs a practical example of how socialism in a post socialist revolution society would functionally handle the exchange of goods.  In a nutshare the author is arguing that Capitalism controls the means of exchange and that's the key problem.  So in my example, I created a scenario where socialist control the means of exchange and have the ability to endorse or prohibit exchanges based on distributed group consensus.  I hope it's a more practical explanation for what the author is suggesting. I found the article a little abstract here.  Anyway, here's my long document example for what the author is suggesting and how it would actually work in practice on a day to day level for people.  https://goo.gl/8hfH91 

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/10/the-origins-and-the-mechanics-of-the-theory-of-conceptual-commodity-value-management/#more-64334Not 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 ourselvesWhat 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

 But if you lived in a post socialist revolution, you would write somethign different that reads more like this. . . 

Quote:

I will trade 15 minutes of my serving you if will give me 15 minutes of your time reading my thoughts and questions below. Care to communisically work together and time reading my question below about your idea in a free exchange for 15 minutes of my time where I’ll serve you by reading and writing whatever you want? Here’s what I want you to read about . . .Theory of Conceptual-Commodity-Value-Managementhttp://dissidentvoice.org/2016/10/the-origins-and-the-mechanics-of-the-t…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 ourselvesWhat 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 with a reply in this forum to me.  "I have no country to fight for; my country is the Earth, and I am a citizen of the World." – Eugene V. DebsThis message was endorsed by and time data verified by a generous donation of time from the world socialist of Great Britain. Join us, and help make the world better.    

 p.s. I took the freedom to design your exchange in the format of a postcard that you might mail your request to specefic members of the forum only.  So if you like exchanging snail mail with local community members then thisyou could print this at kinko's on cardstock and at very low resource costs. So you could limit who you "associate" this "exchange" of information with in a post revolution socialist society communiication paradigm. the endoresment just mean SPGB took their time to send the postcard or one of the memebers contributed that and named SPGB as a Beneficiary. So any SPGB memeber can endorse an exchange and say they're a member with honesty about themselves and their role.  Anyway, if that's getting too recursive and complex, you can see how this works in practice and see this comment turned into a postcard design that is more readible and better formatted for easier reading at https://docs.google.com/document/d/12N92wl74vQathQT1hJmNkJsl_DsKrdU7XrO_O66ZH8o/edit#heading=h.2n6zx64qovqb

[twc]

1. Robbo, exchange-value reduces use-values [otherwise incommensurable goods, services and labour powers] to a common abstraction—the money-form.You readily make that abstraction everyday when you bring use-values, as diverse and otherwise incomparable as pairs of shoes, iPhones and panel-beating, under a common mental conception—price.You are here arguing that such abstractions, in this case your unconscious abstraction of prices, arise in your imagination alone, which is what Kant effectively argues for every abstraction.But Marx, following Hegel—his avowed and admired mentor as thinker—both recognised that abstractions are never isolated, but stand or fall logically as interconnections.  We reason abstractions into existence.Hegel gives his famous example of our abstraction of a bird-call that we connect by reason out of its temporal moments.  This is the archetype of all abstractions, for Marx as for Hegel.Watch Marx, in the early chapters of Vol. 1, abstracting the persistent and the invariant out of the contingent and variable, by reason.Watch him abstract essence out of its [naive] forms-of-appearance, by reason.Talking of naive forms of appearance…2. LBird, as a soi-disant ‘democratic thinker’, pause your one-track tirade against us tyrants to explain why naive-realism—which you despise from your superior philosophical and intellectual height as contemptibly beneath your refined consideration—isn’t the most ‘democratic’ of all systems of thought?After all, the entire demos possesses it.Even the dogs of the demos manage pretty well by it.Why isn’t lowly base plebeian naive-realism the archetypal form of common ‘democratic thought’?Why, when judged on purely democratic grounds, isn’t straightforward naive-realism far more ‘democratic’ than your convoluted marshalling and militaristic dragooning of all mankind to commit to hourly ritual performance, as in Islam, of its socially imposed labour to become eternally proficient in, and to pass ultimate authoritative intellectual judgement upon, everything?Why so convoluted?  …  Because of the desperate need to resolve certitude in your evanescant uncertain-and-insecure Berkelean philosophy.In obeisance to your Berkelean insecurity and uncertainty about the world out there, you need to force mankind to ‘democratically’ pronounce upon the certain-and-secure truth-value of every external-world proposition, equation, theorem, statement, derivation, lemma and corollary in every disparate science from acarology to zygmotics,.In obeisance to your Berkelean insecurity and uncertainty about the world out there, you need to force mankind to ‘democratically’ censor the truth-value of every art-form from abstract-naiveism to zoological-depiction, in order to bring certainty and security back into your fraught Berkelean conception of the external-world, a truly mysterious realm that remains forever beyond your uncertain and insecure reach!It is you who desperately craves the certainty, security, fixity you falsely accuse others of.How much more simply understanable—your gold-plated criterion of exposition—is naive-realism than your sophisticated non-understandable variety?  If not, why not?How much more ‘democratic’—your other gold-plated criterion of truth—is unforced ‘naive-realism’ than your socially policed thought-control?  If not, why not?3. Steve, money has always been, and must necessarily be, under the control of the class-society state, from way back in its pre-capitalist emergence in ancient Ionia.Class struggles have been waged over control of the means of exchange.  The capitalist class has now secured control of it.The Socialist Party does not seek to wrest control of the means of exchange from the capitalist class through class struggle.Why?  Because there will be no means of exchange under socialism.Read our Object and Declaration of Principles.

[Anonymous]

twc wrote:

3. Steve, money has always been, and must necessarily be, under the control of the class-society state, from way back in its pre-capitalist emergence in ancient Ionia.

Does anyone want to do me a reading, reasoning, and responding 5 minute contest favor?  If so, write for me 5 minutes on the topic of

Quote:

“Debate: in a time value exchange currency society, it’s the people who own the means of production, and the people decide who they affiliate with, and the people decide their personal and group exchange rate together? Is Time Value the Same as Capital Value?

Send me a link to your response where ever you decide to write it to #ReadingReasoningRespondingInterviewQuestionTest234.  I’ll tweet back with a url for you claim any additional time or credit direct to your account if your response has surplus value to me as judged by the 5 minute judges who will review and compare your answer. Entries will be judged on basis of #Perception, #Humor, and #Originality So, Good NEWS there's a prize possibility if you’re a really good writer. #TopAnswer gets 5 hours of my time.  Or type your 5 minute answer directly into my google doc or form at: https://goo.gl/QswLlN 

twc wrote:

Class struggles have been waged over control of the means of exchange.  The capitalist class has now secured control of it.

No, The capitalist secure controll over the means of exchange is an illusionary house of cards I can knock down with a mimetic virus. this is real. I have the ability to wrest the means of exchange from the capitalist class in a completely bloodless information revolution.  I'm not proposing anything illegal. What I"m proposing is a revolutionary new way of exchanging information and resources based on time value voluntary exchanges. 

twc wrote:

The Socialist Party does not seek to wrest control of the means of exchange from the capitalist class through class struggle.

Ok, so how does the Socialist Party feel about wrestling control of the means of exchange with a mimetic virus. If it's an idea that comes from voluntary association that wrests controll of the means of exchange from the capitalist class without class struggle, then what?  someone with the means and ability to wrest control of the means or exchange from the capitalist class who's decided to use it because he hates capitalst greed and missmanagement.  If someone, like me, has that idea, then who do you think they should talk to about it? Send me a link please. Maybe that school or whatever you SPGB loyalist have a hate/hate relationship with?  Wouild you wish me on your worst enemy? if so give me their contact URL please.  We'll get a long  better maybe than you and me?

twc wrote:

 Why?  Because there will be no means of exchange under socialism. 

I really don't understand that. you must be refereing to a specefic economic theory by a slogan name? Can you clarify this sentence for me because I don't unders and how you intend to coordinate complex process like manufacture of toasters without exchanging resources.  What to you mean by the word "Exchange"?  Can you write for me in 5 minutes what you mean by Exchange and use this exact sentence in your answer?  thanks for the thinks in adcance if so.  

twc wrote:

 Read our Object and Declaration of Principles.

sure can you give me the link.  and how is it relevant to me? maybe you want me to focus on particular part of the object and delcaration of principles.  I'll spend 15 minutes reading your object of declaration of principles.  I owe you that much and just need the link and any additional instructions from you on how you want me to read it.  I value your time and will return the time you spent writing to me and share with you the surplus value of our conversation.

[alanjjohnstone]

Cheers, YMS, for simplifying it even more for me to understand  

[Young Master Smeet]

To go back to the original question: the article appears to be arguing that prices are not market derived, but simply set at a whim by businesses, as they are partial monopolies.  That's about it.  I think Varoufakis, and various Keynsians have argued this as well.There is some truth in the decoupling of the prices of specific goods from their value: for instance supermarkets price by consumer baskets, rather than by the specific good, loss leading heavily with some goods to try and draw out higher overall spending (who just buys a loaf of bread in a supermarket, the plan is to make you 'pick something up' while you're there).There is certainly plenty of rent seeking: many forms put a lot of store in Intellectual Property (IP) and other rent seeking behaviours.  Marx did note that prices for non-reproducable goods are essentially arbitrary.The note of caution is that so long as capital markets function, and shares can be traded in firms, the administrative prices will tend to gravitate towards value and prices of production will still form the starting point of pricing.

[Author]

Posts