LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:I don't think these exchanges make it any easier for me to understand Marx, the transformation problem and TSSI. As we have always argued and LBird too, our theory isn't too complicated and all workers should be able to understand it. When they don't it is often the communicators failure. I wish i never asked the question now
I thought that you would have had a read of DJP's link to TSSI on wikipedia.In that text, it is clear that the status of 'Marxism' is in dispute, with differing 'Marxists' offering differing opinions on TSSI.It seems to me, that to have some understanding of that dispute, requires some understanding of what might be the root of these inter-'Marxist' disagreements.I'll put my money on it being between Engelsian 'materialists' and those who take inspiration from Marx and the 'relationship' between 'ideal and material'.If you are starting from the assumption that 'Marxism is Marxism', and that you simply want 'The Truth' of TSSI, I think that this is a mistake.There is an interesting and informative discussion waiting to be had, from which I'll learn much, too.
robbo203 wrote:…LBird. I really cannot be bothered to take you seriously anymoreSuits me, robbo, Bye, bye.I can turn my attention to those who do take these issues, that I raise, seriously.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I don't think these exchanges make it any easier for me to understand Marx, the transformation problem and TSSI. As we have always argued and LBird too, our theory isn't too complicated and all workers should be able to understand it. When they don't it is often the communicators failure. I wish i never asked the question nowThat's a shame, alan.My initial response was tailored to your (self-admitted) lack of awareness of these issues.I've tried to 'communicate', but you haven't reciprocated. Discussion requires a dialogue.So, the 'failure' is not simply the 'communicators', but also your failure to 'reciprocate'.We all share the blame for 'failure'.But, at least mine is a 'failure of trying'… an active failure, not a passive one.
gnome wrote:LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:Please do not try to divert attention yet again from these questions otherwise we will be compelled to conclude that what lies behind your assertions is just a whole lot of hot air signifiying nothing of substance whatsoeverI'll stick with Marx's dynamic 'hot air'; you stick with Engels' stationary 'cold matter'.
Actually you'll just stick with LBird's 'wind and piss' …
You wouldn't know what I'm saying, gnome, because you've never read Marx or Engels.If you had, the differences between them, and the impossibility of Engels' 'materialism' being the philosophical basis of workers' power, the changing of circumstances to suit the revolutionary proletariat, would be obvious to you.You just continue to add nothing whatsoever to this discussion – 'empty vessels', and all that.
robbo203 wrote:Please do not try to divert attention yet again from these questions otherwise we will be compelled to conclude that what lies behind your assertions is just a whole lot of hot air signifiying nothing of substance whatsoeverThe materialists, including you robbo, have already 'concluded' that there is 'nothing of substance' to 'ideas'.That's the whole point of Engels' 'materialism'.The bourgeoisie removed 'consciousness' from its considerations of 'nature/being', to reflect their removal of 'society' from 'property'.They supposedly 'discover' an 'external static reality', whereas Marx argued for the 'changing' of a 'malleable relationship between consciousness and being'.I'll stick with Marx's dynamic 'hot air'; you stick with Engels' stationary 'cold matter'.
robbo203 wrote:You are missing the point arent you? Its still a matter of counting – even by your own admission – and so therefore involves a quantitative aspect as well. I mean how can you exercise democracy without such quantitative "counting"?Y'know, sometimes I wonder at the childishness of all this.I say 'theory and practice' – the materialists say 'what about practice, LBird'.I say 'subject and object' – the materialists say 'what about object, LBird'.I say 'ideal and material' – the materialists say 'what about material, LBird'.I say 'mind and matter' – the materialists say 'what about matter, LBird'.I say 'consciousness and being' – the materialists say 'what about being, LBird'.I say 'quality and quantity' – the materialists say 'what about quantity, LBird'.I just know that if I said that 'I love cheese and onion crisps', the materialists would complain about my hatred of onion.I have to believe that you're all doing this on purpose, because the alternative is that 'materialists can't read'. It's so circular and depressing – we never take the discussion forward.
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…).
