LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:The simplest explanation, alan, is that Marx's 'value' is qualitative (relational), whereas his bourgeois detractors regard science as quantitative (countable)..
Here's another thing I cant quite figure out LBird. So help me our here. You say the question of value will be subject to a democratic vote in a workers democracy. Isnt that a matter of counting heads – something that is quantifiable?
No, it's not 'a matter of counting heads' (a physical count of material beings), but 'a matter of counting minds/opinions' (which includes, obviously, consciousness). So, it's as much qualitative as quantitative. 'Counting heads' is merely quantitative. You might argue 'it's only a matter of words', but I think your choice of words is very revealing.If we remove 'consciousness' from our social estimation of 'what things are', we revert to pre-Marx 'materialism', which is precisely what Engels did do.That's why Marx was discussing critical theory and practice, focussed on the relationship between consciousness and being, and not on the supposed absence of consciousness from being, as is supposed by bourgeois science, which claims that 'knowledge' is eternal, fixed, non-social, non-relative, once-discovered-always-True, and so cannot be changed by us workers, in the future, in pursuit of our ideals, of the good life for all.In fact, even physics and maths are social creations, and do not 'reflect' the so-called 'material' world. They are 'ideal-material', as were Marx's views. Physics is just like sociology, and its methods and the knowledge it produces are just as class-based.Because our world is our creation, by social theory and practice, we can change it. Different classes produce different worlds, in physics and maths, history and sociology.To control the means of production, we have to control all of our social activities. There can't be an elite who claim to know, outside of our democratic control. That leads to 'private property' in both ideal and material.
gnome wrote:LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:Yes but how will 7 billion workers vote on the question of value in the workers democracy? What are the mechanisms involved and will postal votes count as well? What form will the question of value take upon which the workers are expected to vote?You really detest any mention of "worker' democracy", don't you, robbo?
And you really detest robbo's logistical question which you are repeatedly asked and which you fail to answer…
Apparently, you 'practical men' can't tell the difference between 'logistics' and 'philosophy' (that is, 'practice' and 'theory'). For you, 'practice' is the driver (as it is for the bourgeoisie), and not 'theory' (as for the revolutionary proletariat).The end result of Engelsian 'materialism' is a pragmatic dealing with 'hard facts', rather than a philosophy of 'change'.If one starts from the 'logistical impossibility' of workers' democracy, how can we workers 'change the world'?The answer is that 'practical men' don't wish to 'change the world', but simply want to 'deal with the reality' of the present one.You might as well join the Labour Party, and forget Marx's ideas regarding 'theory and practice' to change our world.
robbo203 wrote:Yes but how will 7 billion workers vote on the question of value in the workers democracy? What are the mechanisms involved and will postal votes count as well? What form will the question of value take upon which the workers are expected to vote?You really detest any mention of "worker' democracy", don't you, robbo?
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:If we can vote on 'value' (ie. it's our conscious social estimate), then we can control it and change it.If 'value' is outside of consciousness (ie. it's 'material' and countable), then it can't be voted upon, and we can't change it by our own determination.How will voting on exchange value help the working class?
Do we really have to have a discussion about the benefits of 'democracy' for the proletariat?I won't derail this thread, but simply say that I was answering alan's appeal for an understandable explanation.One's view of 'value' will be determined by one's view of "workers' democracy".
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:The simplest explanation, alan, is that Marx's 'value' is qualitative (relational), whereas his bourgeois detractors regard science as quantitative (countable).This isn't an explanation of Marx's value theory at at all… Ignore.
Beware, comrades!DJP is a 'materialist/physicalist', and wants to 'count' love.alan, if you want to decide between these explanations, you have to clarify your own standpoint.I suspect, though, that if you stick with 'materialism', you'll remain baffled – as is the rest of the working class.This 'mass bafflement' suits the 'materialists', because it prevents the proletariat from democratically controlling the means of production, and leaves its control in the hands of those who know what the 'price' of 'value' is.If we can vote on 'value' (ie. it's our conscious social estimate), then we can control it and change it.If 'value' is outside of consciousness (ie. it's 'material' and countable), then it can't be voted upon, and we can't change it by our own determination.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Heard of this debate ..the transformation problem and prices versus value but never really understood its importance. Its the significance of it that i'm puzzled by. I still need an idiots guide to the discussion…and the implications in practice for workers…how we apply the theory to our understanding of exploitation and extraaction of surplus value.The simplest explanation, alan, is that Marx's 'value' is qualitative (relational), whereas his bourgeois detractors regard science as quantitative (countable).The bourgeoisie pretended to remove consciousness from their understanding of reality, and thus pretended that all 'science' was mathematical. Thus, they argue, if 'value' can't be 'counted', it is not a 'scientific' concept.They are essentially saying that if love can't be counted, for example by looking at the price of a birthday card (which embodies the 'reality' of love), then love doesn't exist.So, alan, if you think that a mother paying £5 for their child's card loves that child more than another mother paying £1 for their child's card, then you will agree with the detractors of Marx's 'labour theory of value'.If you think that neither love nor value can be 'quantified', then you'll also think that the 'transformation problem' is a load of bollocks. And that there are other social reasons why one mother can afford a £5 card, whilst another can't, and in itself that 'fact' tells one nothing about their respective 'loving relationships' and their depth.
Not all French people are taken in by their government's crocodile tears about 'terrorism'.
BBC article about St. Denis wrote:"Right, solidarity… But don't you think they exaggerate the Paris attacks when there are more Syrians dying everyday?" This is what I heard in Saint Denis, a multicultural and multi-ethnic place with a population of Africans, Algerians, Indians, Chinese, Turkish and many other backgrounds….Celine Inerrakene and her friend Lemea Cau are both 17 and part of the banlieue generation.When I ask about the Paris attacks, Celine blames French government policy."I think there will be a third world war. But France has been asking for it because of its intervention in Syria," she says."The Paris attacks lasted three hours – but this happens everyday in Syria. And Palestinians are dying, too…."If you look closer at Syria, there are now nearly 250,000 dead there. It is about 160 dead per day. So, I am not shocked by these Paris attacks."….That separation from the rest of French society is highlighted by Nilgul, a 29-year-old ethnic Turkish woman born in Saint Denis.Much of the anger here dates back to France's war in Algeria from 1954-62, in which at least 60,000 Algerian civilians died, she suggests."Their problem is not Paris. The reason they're being radicalised might be their desire to take revenge for their parents," she believes…..http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34855612Clearly, some still remember '61.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Yes, the real gangsters and terrorists are the Western powers. The murderers in Paris of 130 are just kids copying adults in comparison.Even the French police can kill more in Paris, with only their hands and cudgels: no need for guns.We'll know when ISIL is the real deal, when tens of thousands are dead in Paris (as in Baghdad), and hundreds of thousands of French refugees are streaming out of France, in search of safety (as in Syria, Iraq, Afghan, Libya…).
Vin wrote:It is fascinating to observe a non member having to argue the Socialist case on war against us….LBird is spot on in this instancePlus ca change… wrote:It is fascinating to observe a non member having to argue the Socialist case on physics against us….LBird is spot on in this instanceYMS wrote:Every corporation has a "brand"… IS, it's just a bunch of gangsters in the desert.This only makes sense if you also insist that, for example, the RAF, doing their 'bombing' and 'machine-gunning' are similarly 'a bunch of gangsters in the desert'.Although, the RAF wanted to take things a step further in Iraq in the '20s: they wanted to use poison gas on the rebellious tribes.So, when ISIS explode a nerve gas bomb in London, we'll already know just who showed them the way: our 'bunch of gangsters'.The RAF's 'brand'? "Atrocities 'R' Us"?http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts
Some sensible comment from Simon Jenkins in The Guardian:
Quote:Think what your enemy wants you to do, and do the opposite. No maxim of war is so ignored…..Western leaders seem blind to reason.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/17/terror-cooperation-paris-attack-response-war-isisThe problem that Jenkins' liberal ideology doesn't identify is that it is entirely 'reasonable' to the ruling class.Not least, there's support for the rich in fear by the poor of 'the enemy', and profits for the rich in war, and regeneration of capitalism in spending on armaments.
robert.cox wrote:…our response to the Paris atrocity: Neither God, nor State, but Humanity.[my bold]But it's a section of 'Humanity' that is responsible for these atrocities (Paris '15, and others, like Paris '61), so lining up with an undifferentiated 'humanity' simply continues the pretence that "we're all in it together" and hides the truth that "the ruling class are responsible".Surely a socialist/communist slogan should read "Neither God, nor State, but Our Class"?Of course, it lacks the 'populist' touch, but whilst capitalism is popular, our message will continue to grate with the majority.But that's no reason to stop 'grating the minds of the majority' – we have to promote critical thought amongst workers, not tack with the media wind. Some will listen now, and as the 'remedies' of the Western governments make things worse, and cause yet more atrocities both in the Middle East and Europe, more will begin to listen, if there is a clear alternative.
Young Master Smeet wrote:However, the French state did not kill those people in Paris, a bunch of brigands did.Yeah, 'the French state' didn't, in the same way that Adolf didn't kill those Jews in the death camps, a 'bunch of brigands' in the SS did.Of course, you're perfectly correct to say the French state didn't pull the triggers, but it created the trigger-pullers.
YMS wrote:To that end, my duty is to constrain the capacity of the killing machine within my reach/means, the British state…The sooner we tell workers in Britain that the British state is busy right now creating the 'trigger-pullers' of the next atrocity to happen in London, the better.The British state will be responsible. Not a 'bunch of brigands'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Lbird,I'll note that America did not invade Syria. America hasn't invaded Mexico, yet we still have similar outfits there.But capitalism has 'invaded' both Syria and Mexico, YMS.And America is the most powerful economic, political and military, capitalist state.Perhaps your avoidance of 'capitalism' (the cause), and focus on ISIS (a symptom), is the problem.You seem to be aiming for 'nice capitalism': a world in which sophisticated Parisians are 'safe from terror', but billions of 'terrorist-supporting' workers aren't.We really should be saying that the French state murdered those innocents in Paris, rather than messing around with giving advice to government terrorists, on how to 'stop the killing'.
Matt wrote:As for some motivation in Iraq of some ISIS fighters.http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/Thanks for that, Matt.
Matts link wrote:More pertinent than Islamic theology is that there are other, much more convincing, explanations as to why they’ve fought for the side they did. At the end of the interview with the first prisoner we ask, “Do you have any questions for us?” For the first time since he came into the room he smiles—in surprise—and finally tells us what really motivated him, without any prompting. He knows there is an American in the room, and can perhaps guess, from his demeanor and his questions, that this American is ex-military, and directs his “question,” in the form of an enraged statement, straight at him. “The Americans came,” he said. “They took away Saddam, but they also took away our security. I didn’t like Saddam, we were starving then, but at least we didn’t have war. When you came here, the civil war started.”This whole experience has been very familiar indeed to Doug Stone, the American general on the receiving end of this diatribe. “He fits the absolutely typical profile,” Stone said afterward. “The average age of all the prisoners in Iraq when I was here was 27; they were married; they had two children; had got to sixth to eighth grade. He has exactly the same profile as 80 percent of the prisoners then…and his number-one complaint about the security and against all American forces was the exact same complaint from every single detainee.”These boys came of age under the disastrous American occupation after 2003, in the chaotic and violent Arab part of Iraq, ruled by the viciously sectarian Shia government of Nouri al-Maliki. Growing up Sunni Arab was no fun. A later interviewee described his life growing up under American occupation…Surprise, surprise.It's not 'Islam' that's the cause, but Western destruction of their societies. These "27 year old men with two kids" are the 'scum' that were mentioned earlier.YMS's solution of cutting the oil profits from ISIS will not change Western foreign policy.Capitalism needs oil and its profits.
