ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“10. Future Propaganda Activities. Bruce proposes a trip to see a performance of “The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists” at Earlsfield in London, in October. Bruce agrees to send information to interested parties.”
Details here: townsendproductions.org.uk/shows/a-new-one-man-magic-lantern-show-of-the-classic-book-the-ragged-trouseed-philanthropists/
It’s in Earlsfield on Wednesday 24, Thursday 25 and Saturday 27 October. Has the branch chosen the date yet as I am sure London members might like to come too?
As I see it’s touring the country till next May I’ll post details under Events too in case members outside London want to see it too. Let’s hope it’s not Labour Party propaganda like the last one I saw.
I don’t think the large size or the italics has to do with Alan J’s eyesight. It seems to be built into <blockquote . Another minor glitch to iron out?
You weren’t supposed to read the article. I didn’t tackle it either. That’s why I watched the video where he explains what he is trying to get at with a minimum of algebra. Basically, as Ricardo and Marx say that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labour required to produce it, not just at the last stage of its production but from start to finish, Ian Wright is trying to find a formula to take this into account where there is production for profit.
This involves counting not just the labour that went to produce the materials used at the last stage but the labour that went into producing those materials and then the labour that went into producing the materials those materials used, and so on. As Ricardo put it:
If we look to a state of society in which greater improvements have been made, and in which arts and commerce flourish, we shall still find that commodities vary in value conformably with this principle: in estimating the exchangeable value of stockings, for example, we shall find that their value, comparatively with other things, depends on the total quantity of labour necessary to manufacture them, and bring them to market. First, there is the labour necessary to cultivate the land on which the raw cotton is grown; secondly, the labour of conveying the cotton to the country where the stockings are to be manufactured, which includes a portion of the labour bestowed in building the ship in which it is conveyed, and which is charged in the freight of the goods; thirdly, the labour of the spinner and weaver; fourthly, a portion of the labour of the engineer, smith, and carpenter, who erected the buildings and machinery, by the help of which they are made; fifthly, the labour of the retail dealer, and of many others, whom it is unnecessary further to particularize. The aggregate sum of these various kinds of labour, determines the quantity of other things for which these stockings will exchange, while the same consideration of the various quantities of labour which have been bestowed on those other things, will equally govern the portion of them which will be given for the stockings.
I’m not sure that this could be done in practice but Ian Wright was trying to show that it could be in theory be done even when there is capital investment for profit.
By the way, if you can’t do maths you might be denied access to this forum. I had to answer what is 1 x one.
Eureka. That was a quote from Alan J. Now I now how to do bold and italics as well.
Why does the passage quoted appear so large?OK. Should have ended /blockquote. Like this (I hope).
I am not accustomed to having to do html to use bold or italics or whatever. Was bad enough having to quote/unquote on the old forum to copy and paste.
OK
I am not accustomed to having to do html to use bold or italics or whatever. Was bad enough having to quote/unquote on the old forum to copy and paste. </quote>
That didn’t work either. What I was trying to do was quote something using <blockquote cite= What should I have done?
Alan Johnstone wrote:
Since we can’t do a preview (something else to be noted to add) I have to experiment in public how this HTML tag to quote works (if it does).
Actually, “flexitarian” is quite a good description of human behaviour generally not just eating habits. It sums up “human nature” rather well. That’s what the behaviour of homo sapiens is: adaptable, flexible. Maybe we should adopt the word.
Thanks, Matt, for taking me through the complicated way to rejoin. It worked (I hope). Soon find out.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I've picked up the frase book, and it's quite interesting, and well worth reading (it's short, more of a pamphklet, really).Just to pick out one thing I want to drill into a bit more: with the Communist Utopia it describes, the book suggests Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a mechanism for the rapid abolition of buying and selling. The argument runs, as the UBI is raised, labour becomes scarce, and leisure time abundant: capitalists will spare labour, and invest in labour saving technology, while the free time of workers becomes redirected to servicing communal needs.(…)This gives us a plausible model (beyond Socialists win election and proclaim socialism) of how the abolition of commodity relations could be managed as a rolling programme.A socialist majority throuigh political action could institute UBI and a deliberate programme of cheapening productive capital (an attack on rent seaking, strategic nationalisation, subsidies, etc.), so long as it was clear in advance that this was not an end in itself, but a means ot achieve the socialistic goal, it would work. With the added advantage that such moves would divide the capitaalist class, as some would benefit while others lost out.In this version, our standard critique, that wages paid directly would fall as employers compensated for the living costs of UBI, would actually work in its favour, as it would keep those capitalists still in business running, and aid labour intensive industries.It would enable a decentralised change to a new society, without having to go through central planning.Peter Joseph of Zeitgeist has suggested a similar idea. A standard objection would be it would be just as difficult to convince a majority to support such a course as to convince them to go the whole hog and establish socialism straightaway.Also, others such as Ernst Mandel in his book on Marxian Economics have suggested other economic mechanisms to bring about "the withering away of commodity production" and money. The trouble is that these assumes the existence side by side of a capitalist (producing for the market, and profit, and employing wage-labour) and a socialist sector (producing direcctly for use) of the economy, which couldn't work.
