Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sympo wrote:robbo203 wrote:I am not quite sure what you mean when you say "Therefore SNLT must be something that exists".
Hmm, how should I explain…Okay, here's an attempt:We accept that labour must be the source of value. The more labour it takes to make a commodity, the larger the value the commodity has.If we don't believe that it's SNLT that determines the value of, say, toasters, we would have no other choice but to agree with this claim:"Mr A, mr B, mr C, mr D and mr E all makes toasters of equal quality. Mr A, B, C and D makes a toaster each in 4 hours. Mr E is really slow and makes a toaster in 40 hours. The toaster of mr E represents a greater value than the toaster of mr A, because it took him more labour time to make it."If we believe that this claim is correct, we have to believe thatthe value of 40 toasters = the value of 1 toasterwhich doesn't make any sense mathematically.But we cannot claim that the source of value isn't labour, because labour is the only thing that can explaina) what determines price when demand and supply are in harmony (note that I'm not saying that value equals price)andb) why commodities exchange at stable ratiosThis leads us to believing that my individual labour time can't determine the value of the commodity that I'm producing. The idea that it's something social makes more sense.Am I being clearer on what I mean?
Hi SympoPerhaps the explanation below might helpFrom Some Aspects of Marxian Economics(SPGB 1978)The value of a commodity, said Marx, is determined by the amount of socially necessary labour contained in it or, what is the same thing, by the amount of socially necessary labour-time spent in producing it from start to finish. Note that the Labour Theory of Value does not say that the value of a commodity is determined by the actual amount of labour contained in it. That would mean that an inefficient worker would create more value than an efficient worker. By socially necessary is meant the amount needed to produce, and reproduce, a commodity under average working conditions, e.g. average productivity, average intensity of labour. For instance, in the British coal industry the average output is about 43cwts. per man shift and there are approximately 230 pits in operation. In some of these output per shift will be above 43cwts. and in others below, but the value of the coal is not fixed by the labour of the workers at pits of either sort. Its value is the social average brought out by the market.I think the problem you are having is that, as bolded above, is that the more labour it takes to make a commodity the more value it contains. I would say essentially yes but, and it's a big but, it's actually the more socially necessary labour time, rather than labour. The essential bit is that it is the amount needed to "produce and reproduce" in "average working conditions". Taking this to your toasters, the average costs in hours might seem to be 4 hours x 4 toasters (A+B+C+D) + 40 hours x 1 toaster= 5 toasters / 56 hours = 11 hours 12 mins per toasterhowever (and I am not including the other SNLT included in mining the copper for the wire making the circuit boards, etc.) in realitity Messers ABCD and not going to wait for E to finish his toaster but are going to make more toastersTherefore it works out at:40 x 4 hours for 40 toasters + 40 hours for 1 toaster = 161 hours for 41 toasters or roughly 4 hours per toaster.The next thing is to become commodities the toasters have to sell. If E doesn't sell his toaster he will have produced no SNLT. However the price of the toasters will refect the SNLT involved in production (Price and value are not the same). If E can reproduce his labour (feed himself, clothe himself and replace the materials he needs to make more toasters, including the capital in machinery, etc.) he will survive in the toaster business. (highly unlikely) If not he will have to start making George Foreman grills!
patreilly wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:I'm finding it very interested how you implment "the right to be forgotten" in this case of MBellemare.His posts are still there, he is just 'not a verified user'
Gone, but not forgotten, you might say. A little like the article in the Toronto Star that seemed to imply that he was prone to telling the odd "porkie pie". Strange how according to him they made a retraction, but the retraction was no where to be found, whilst the original article was still on line.Sadly the whole thing could be construed as giving the impression that Mbellemare was a self publicising, narcissistic, anarchist-wanabee, which I'm sure couldn't be further from the truth.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Credit where credit is due. Anything that reduces the threat of war is to be welcomed. Regardless of Trump, this is perhaps his greatest foreign policy achievement, something akin to Nixon's ping-pong diplomacy, or Reagan's Evil Empire strategy to bring don the Soviet Union.However, we have to ponder the difference in approach to Iran and wonder if, as many suspect, the US is acting in the interests of Israel in regard to Iran.The agreement with North Korea has no verification process for de-nuclearisation and there was no insistence upon access to North Korea's nuclear facilities. In an interview i watched, Trump says the US will be able to monitor the dismantling but then contradicts himself a little bit later by admitting the US has very limited intelligence capability when it comes to North Korea. He also said the question of no human rights in the dictatorship was not an issue for him.When asked about the difference with Iran, Trump could only refer to the so-called $170 billion Iran is receiving and the interviewer failed to explain that this cash being given to Iran is its own funds frozen and stolen by sanctions.As i said, anything that reduces the threat of confrontation is something we can applaud and i await Trump to talk directly with Iran's ayatollahs….but we know Israel will not endorse such talks…Sadly Alan I think you’re only ever example of optimism may be be misplaced. Despite all of the publicity the real reason behind the summit was that it was actually the final of the World’s Shittest Haircut Competition. Unfortunately for the ultra stalinists Arthur Scargill was knocked out at the semi final stage. From what I understand the final ended as a draw and in line with usual protocol Angela Merkel won on penalties.
LBird wrote:patreilly wrote:LBird wrote:I've never argued for 'a workers world state' –Thank you for that clear opposition to a world state controlled by workers.
I'm a democratic socialist, pat. I thought that SPGB members also opposed 'a world state controlled by workers', but perhaps you also oppose 'a world controlled by workers'?If you do oppose this, who (or what) do you think does (and should in the future within democratic socialism) politically control our world?My answer is simple: at present, the bourgeoisie control our world, but under democratic socialism the democratic producers will control their world.Please answer this political question, as you've avoided doing so (as I predicted you would, because all 'materialists' avoid this political question).
patreilly wrote:Fair enought but how will the decision on 'truth' be decided and imposed? What if 'elites' or even workers disagree and decide their own 'How'? By democratic production of truth.'If 'elites' disagree'? No elites will be allowed political power within democratic socialism. All elected delegates can be removed if they show signs of 'elitism'.'If workers disagree'? A democratic vote will prevail, and the 'truth' which loses the vote will be put to one side, until it can garner enough support to overturn the previously elected 'truth', at which point workers will then elect that 'truth'. That is, 'truth production' is a democratic political process, which can change, and not a fixed state of being, which can't be changed.Since I'm answering the political questions being asked, isn't it time you (or someone from the SPGB) answered the simple political question:If not the revolutionary, class conscious proletariat, who (or what) determines 'truth'?Surely you have some idea of an answer, pat? Up until now, the partial answer has sometimes been given here, that elite 'Specialists' employing a non-democratic method shall determine 'truth', but it's never made clear how this political process will fit into democratic socialism, so the answer is incomplete.I do hope that you can clarify this issue of power for me (and any other interested workers), pat.Welcome back my feathered friendIf Truth has to be decided democratically then who decides which truths have to be decided?It follows therefore that if it is necessary to decide democratically what is the truth, it is necessary to decide democratically what is in doubt. So do we therefore have to vote on what in doubt before we can vote on what is the truth?
MBellemare wrote:No..this is a hate-group…you truly are haters. At least, most of you, minus alan and Steve San fran., the rest of you are closer to fascism and stalinism, you are a hate-group and hate differences. You see no value in different points of views. Everyone must conform to your myopic ideology. This is the literal definition of a hate-group, hence, why there are no women on here. I want no part of this any longer, this all male hate-groupYet again you inflate your importance. Do you honestly think that members of the working class who have spent decades thinking about and working towards the development of Socialist ideas, with all of the social and personal sacrifices that involves, have the time and interest to “hate” you.At the risk of sounding like a teenager, get over yourself, sunshine.We are interested in developing and spreading Socialist ideas.You have put forward some ideas about economics which you have failed to back up with any form of reasoned argument.At the risk of disappointing you and your view of how important you are, I don’t give a toss about you on a personal level, yet alone have the time to hate you.Sadly however your ideas, which are a barrier to working class emancipation, need to be exposed as the blind alley they are.However to be fair, it appears from the limited interest in your half baked ideas, that the Working Class have been spared the trauma of your poorly developed concepts.
MBellemare wrote:Bijou, I've already answered your tariffs question, like, some ten posts ago. Its an arbitrary power-move, a might equals right, kinda thing, not much more than an attempt to over-power an opponent. To impose one's will on another, a power-network attempting to override another power-network.But how, if prices are purely arbitrary, does might equal right. If as you hold, prices are arbitrary, then tariffs would be pointless, how could you over power an opponent using tariffs. How would an aribitrary price increase over power anybody if it didn't mean anything. Overpowering implies that prices have power, but according to you, prices can be set any way you like, so they have no power.
MBellemare wrote:WHATEVER!!…. Anonymous Nobodies!, part of a non-existent, marginal, hate-group, which no-one reads or cares for! A Hate-group, full of hate, jealousy and bitterness, failures from A TO Z. After all, only failures and trolls conceal themselves behind Monikers.Ha ha haAnarchism, Now! Anarchism, Forever!As most people on here know, my name is Tim Kilgallon, I was so keen to conceal my identity I stood as a candidate for the SPGB at the European parliamentary election of 1989https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyne_and_Wear_(European_Parliament_constituency)I was so chicken shit, to use your phrase, a leaflet with my name and photo (not a pretty sight) was sent out to about 100,000 households in my home area I also was inerviewed several times by Local TV re the SPGB and our position.I do not claim this as any particular act of heroism, just to prove that I am not anonymous in my political views.Bijou Drains was the pseudo name used by Pete Townshend when he played bass on the classic hit "Something in the Air" by Thunderclap Newman, and to my mind the song has a bit of a link to the idea of a socialist revolution (a very small link, by the way).If your only argument against the SPGB position is that we are anonymous and hide our identities, you really are clutching at straws. All of our meetings are open to the public, you can read all of our EC minutes, branch minutes, you are welcome to visit our head office and read any material relating to the decisions and running of the party since 1904. No secrets, no skeletons in closets here, not even critical articles from Canadian newspapers!
Marcos wrote:MBellemare wrote:Most of you on this thread are FASCISTS, and truly ignorant, bitter morons, bemoaning the fact that you have amounted to absolutely nothing, or published anything of any value! I am please that like the chicken shits that you all are, I do not know your real names, arm-chair marxists. And I have answered all your queries…but you refuse to accept the answers. So from now on, every time you hear someone laughing, note that it is me laughing, laughing at a bunch of anonymous losers and spineless cowards, lost in the confines of 19th century failures.SPGB is the honorable term for fascism, a collection pool for idiots.Fuck YOu ALL!!!Anarchism, Now! Anarchism Forever!You are angry and frustrated because bullshitting did not work around here, and your PHD did not work around here either. There are peoples in this forum and in this party who are not arrogant and they also have an academic title, but they do not care about that. They know that universities only prepare the individuals to serve the ruling class as wage slaves with a higher level of education, There are too many peoples on the street with a PhD in Philosophy standing at the exit of the Freeway with a hat and a guitar collecting money to survive, and looking for foods at the religious centers, capitalism has affected their life There are lawyers and doctors who can not find a job, and they are two professions of prestige, they cannot pay their debts and can not have professional license, their family and personal life has fallen apartI know peoples with a high level of academic education who have become alcoholic because they are frustrated, this society has destroyed their life, but they do not understand the mechanism of this society, but I know others with less academic education who understand the operation of the capitalist society and they are optimistic.Being Marxist, or Anarchist, or whatever peoples call them is not important, it is just a name or a title, what is important is the class consciousness that each individual should have, the revolution should start in our minds by obtaining the proper principles to be able to see a better society. Like someone told me many years ago: Each generation does not work for itself, it works for the future generation, we all want to leave a better world for our children and grandchildren. I am 70 years old, well lived and I am not frustrated or living a bitter life.My first love is socialism and this small and tiny political party, we are small in size but we are big in political history, we can be wiped out like any other political group ( the Bolsheviks were bigger ) but we are leaving a legacy for the world working class, we are going to die, but we are going to leave a generation of young socialist, probably, you want a new world like us, but your approach is not helping you, you are young with a long road to travel, but you must learn how to hold the wheels, because you are going to crash all the time, as you have done right now, you blew it
Dear MarcosThe above reply is precisely why you should never restrict your contirbutions to one post a month. Salut Comrade
MBellend wrote:Most of you on this thread are FASCISTS, and truly ignorant, bitter morons, bemoaning the fact that you have amounted to absolutely nothing, or published anything of any value! I am please that like the chicken shits that you all are, I do not know your real names, arm-chair marxists. And I have answered all your queries…but you refuse to accept the answers. So from now on, every time you hear someone laughing, note that it is me laughing, laughing at a bunch of anonymous losers and spineless cowards, lost in the confines of 19th century failures.SPGB is the honorable term for fascism, a collection pool for idiots.Fuck YOu ALL!!!Anarchism, Now! Anarchism Forever!I know it's a long shot, but any chance of an answer to the question I asked you about why governments would set tariffs, if there was no relationshp between value and price?You see some readers might think that your little temper outbursts are a way of avoiding awkward questions, and as someone who firmly believes, as stated previously, that you are not an attention seeking self publisist, I would be love to see your response, as this would show emphatically that you are not a poseur who cannot be relied on to back up your arguments, but a serious theorist, a man of stern stuff, a real force to reckoned with.Come on, bonny lad, I know you've got it in you!
MBellemare wrote:Bijiou, you are a narrow-minded, conservative, out-of-date, block-head. The article you have read….is a slanderous one and is full of lies. It was orchestrated by those, who hate those that can make a living with their art and their writing. Nothing more can be said. The paper did print a retraction, months later. Bijiou, hiding behind a moniker, like a frightened little boy.I am so glad the paper printed a retraction, I couldn't believe that what the article implies would actually apply to you, i.e. that you are a attention seeking self publicist of very little talent. You would never have got that impression from the well thought out contributions you have made to this site. Funnily enough I have looked through the archive and cannot find the retraction you mentioned, be a sweetheart and post a link for me, I'm also surprised that they left the original article on line, you should have a word with them and get them to take the "slanderous(sic) article" off their site. If it is still up there people might get the impression that it is true, heaven forbid.p.s I'm still hoping you are going to explain how tariffs fit into your concept that prices can be set without reference to value.Anyway must sign off, pass on my regards to Alan, Wayne, Merill, Jay, Marie and of course not forgetting Little Jimmy, and keeping those "Crazy Horses" smoking up the sky.
MBellemare wrote:In my country, bijiou it is slander.You're not getting much right today, are you:https://www.cbabc.org/For-the-Public/Dial-A-Law/Scripts/Your-Rights/240 Slander covers the spoken word
MBellend wrote:Bijou….you are about as uneducated as they come, that is, the worst type of educated, i.e., a narrow-minded, conservative, type of educated. I suggest you get your head out of your ass, and actually read my work, before you slander. Its good that you hide your sorry ass behind a moniker, chicken shit! Because, its clear you are all yap yap yap and no action. Not even an original thought in vacant head.If I had defamed you, which I havent, it would be libel not slander, you really should be more exact in your terminology. As stated previously, I would like an answer to my question about tariffs, it seems to blow a huge whole in your whole argument.You could also tell me if you are the Donny Osmond lookalike featured in this article:https://www.pressreader.com/canada/ottawa-citizen/20111231/295931838219892 If so am I right to assume that this isn't a political discussion but is actually a piece of really shit performance art?
MBellend wrote:Bijou. ..posting links does not make you a reader… any marxist numb-skull can post a link. So once again Bijou why don't you excuse yourself from the conversation because it is beyond your vocabulary and limits of what you have read. Maybe try a Lenin thread… you can talk about how bolshevism is still relevant and not totalitarian. As for post-modernism I do like foucault and much of post-modern writings because they point-out the righteousness of marxism and capitalism, alike. BOTH ARE TOTALITARIAN NARRATIVES. The fact is marxism and bourgeois-capitalism are narratives, stories, …devoid of universal truth. Too Bad, its just the way reality appears to be. Without a multi-level, multi-lateral coalition, Marxism is dead as disco. And post-modernism is the only philosophy out-there that truly grasps what it means to have a true plurality. And that means that Marxism has to open itself to criticism and new theories such as structural-anarchism. No one wants a marxist dictatorship of the proletariat ever again…Marxism IS Old HAT! So I Read All Sorts Of PHILOSOPHY. Unlike You Bijou I Am Not Limited And Confined To The ONE-Dimensionality OF Marx. And I know my Marx, Inside And Out. So You Can Play SAMANTICS With Me And STRUCTURAL-Anarchism. But It Does Not Make Marx Any More Relevant Today But It Does Make Him Evermore Obsolete. History is proving this to be an accurate assessment. Narratives, Narratives Narratives, everywhere narratives. Anarchism, Now! ANARCHISM, FOREVER!You stated that I cannot have read your material because you have a web counter and you would know if I had, I then post you links to where I have read the guff that you have written and now you accuse me of not bothering to read it. You go on to you state that I would defend bolshevism as being relevant and non-totalitarian, it looks like it's YOU that has not been reading, my friend. You clearly have not read anything to do with theory and history of the SPGB. The SPGB has opposed bolshevism since 1917! We had our meetings broken up by the bolshevists in the 1920s and 30s.Also I'm glad that a man if your standing has been able to put such a reasoned and cogent argument together (sic). Interesting that you accuse others of being anti-democratic, elitist and against reasoned debate and then tell me to leave the thread as only those who reach the enlightened level of your good self should take part in it.Enough, however, of your puerile insults and attempts at proof by assertion. let's get back to the nub of your "theory", i.e. that prices are set at the whim of capitalists and that they do not relate to value. As I stated earlier in this thread, amongst other criticisms of position, if it is the case that prices can be set in the way you describe, why is Trump proposing tariffs to exclude Chines steel from being dumped on the US market?This is a twofold problem for your position. Firstly if prices could be set on a whim, US steel manufacturers could simply reduce the price of their steel to below that of the dumped Chinese steel and secondly if prices could be set on a whim the Chinese could simply absorb the tariff into the price of their steel so the tariff wouldn’t be a problem and neither side would go to the bother of putting them in place.I have been waiting for you to answer this for some time. As, as stated frequently, you have a PHD and as you clearly intellectually superior to the plebs in the SPGB, surely such a task should not have taken a man of your calibre as long to answer?Oh and by the way misspelling semantics is pure comedy gold, my hearty congratulations.As for disco being dead, looks like your wrong there as well;http://www.nilerodgers.com/events-listGet down and boogie, brother.
