[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

To incur the wrath of LBird i do accept that division of labour is not all bad particular in science and ideology.

'Division of labour is not all bad'? 'Particularly' in some of the most powerful aspects of human society?

ajj wrote:

I can easily leave the knowledge of…

'Bio-chemistry'. And the other subjects? If we enter a period of revolution with the attitude that we can 'easily leave the knowledge of' 'subject x' to 'specialist y', it won't be long before 'x' will be 'value' and 'y' will be 'economists'.And 'x' will be 'power' and 'y' will be 'politicians'.No-one is arguing that everybody must know everything about everything, because that would be to reduce the proletariat to 'individuals' (which your concerns, about the social 'division of labour' being refracted through your own personal wishes, seem to be focussed upon).Communists must hold that that there will be no 'division of labour' for the proletariat, in which a small, elite group (mathematicians, scientists, economists, chemists, physicists, 'materialists' who 'know matter'. etc.) outside of the democratic control of the proletariat, tell the proletariat anything.There will be worker-mathematicians under the control of their fellow-workers.There will be worker-delegates under the control of their fellow-workers.And there will be no division of labour especially in the two powerful areas that you see fit to regard as worthy of a division of labour.There will be worker-scientists under the control of their fellow-workers.There will be worker-ideologists under the control of their fellow-workers.What's more, any discussion about the social acid of 'value' must be under the control of all workers. And to do that, all workers must already understand the nature of 'value'. That's why we must produce an explanation, rather than quote from mysterious 'economic manuals', that others on this thread say that they don't find useful, as I openly say myself, and which pleas the 'materialists' (they of the cloth ears) keep ignoring. Workers keep saying "we don't understand Capital or Value, Price and Profit", but the 'materialists' insist that they do; 'just keep reading the texts' seems to be their advice.You said in a previous post that you think that there is some 'thin red line' of Communists. I'm not sure about this at all, that there is at this time an identifiable body of workers who understand that power cannot be divisible.To me, workers' democracy implies 'no division of labour'. If it doesn't to you, alan, I don't think our politics are the same at all.[PS. the only thing that makes sense of your argument to me is that you're using bourgeois ideology to understand the meaning of 'division of labour'; that is, it's about 'division of individuals', rather than Communist ideology that it's about 'division of society' into classes. If you are doing this, it makes me think even more that we do not share the same ideology and politics]

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I know i am going to be crucified for this and accused of having a blinkered approach to politics but i really have a problem that over the past year we have had a series of extraordinary long threads on what i shame-faced would describe as abstract Marxist esoterics.

You won't get 'crucified for this' by me, alan.The problem is the poor explanations by socialists, since the 19th century, of really important issues for workers, but which have been explained so badly that most reasonable workers would call them 'abstract esoterics'.I've always tried to give explanations using analogies, and point out the political consequences of the explanations that have been given.On the other hand, if you're minded to leave the "intellectual leadership of workers" to someone other than workers themselves, then the 'Abstractionist-Esotericians' will take charge.I suspect that the 'A-E's will live in the big houses, give the orders, do the thinking, whilst the 'deal with the real world of politics' workers will provide the labour force.Will be a bit like capitalism or soviet communism, I have a feeling…

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Could I ask a question.What is the value of knowing "What is value"?

In the context of the explanations that I've given, SP, perhaps if I put your question into the mouth of a parent who has children who want to play with some strange chemical:

Parent of kids playing with, and about to touch a liquid, wrote:

Could I ask a question.What is the value of knowing "What is acid"?

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

You are even more embarrassing with your attempt to understand 'value'. What with all this about bricks and clay.

I'm truly hurt, Vin.I especially crafted my explanation to take into account your desire to use the ideology of 'Mudpieism', sorry, 'Materialism', to help you to understand reality.Yeah, I should have guessed that the complexity of a 'brick' would be a step too far.My bad, comrade!

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

, you won't explain, any further than quoting from works that are the very ones that are not understood. Surely you can see the logical problem?

LBird wrote:

 Marx, Capital, wrote:A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. [my bold]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm

You really are tiresome, Vin.I'm quoting Marx to show he agrees with my explanation, not quoting him as the explanation.Do try to keep up. Ask the 'material conditions' to explain the 'subtleties' to you, if necessary.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

But I'm not quoting Marx back at you, I'm explaining in my own words.

YMS, all the SPGB members have recommended Marx's texts, rather than explain using their own words.You are not explaining in your own words, but using Marx's concepts.

YMS wrote:

Now, I've explained that value is about social production using commodities…

[my bold]Need I say anymore?

YMS wrote:

…something that is readily understandable to anyone who has ever been in a workplace and had a gaffer shouting 'Time is money' at them. That's all you need to understand to understand value.

[my bold]That's just laughable, YMS.

YMS wrote:

I'm not taking the piss, I'm relaying my experience.

No, if there's one thing I've come to understand about you, YMS, you are serious about your position, and humour plays little part in it.My experience is the complete opposite. Workplaces are not teeming with workers who, simply from their experience of bullying 'gaffers', understand the nature of 'value', and why it is dangerous to humans.For me to judge whose 'experience' is the norm, yours or mine, I can look to society today, after generations of the aforementioned 'gaffers'.I see my opinions confirmed, rather than yours.If your opinion on this issue prevails in the SPGB, why does the SPGB bother to argue for propaganda and education by socialists amongst their fellow workers?That's the strategy that appeals to me, and why I came to this site, after reading ALB and alanjjohnstone's contributions on LibCom. But I seem to have found the opposite, just the usual guff about "it's all obvious to workers through their practice and experience" and about "material conditions" talking to/leading/guiding the workers.If what you argue is true, why isn't there a mass movement of worker-socialists on this planet? If it's easy to understand 'value', Capital is a doddle, and both the 'material conditions' and "workers' own experience" are all conspiring in our favour?It's not a world I recognise, YMS.

[LBird]

YMS, I've already pointed out that a 'structure' can form a 'component' for a higher-level 'structure', so I've already said that a 'wall' can also be a 'use-value'.The real problem is, you're already determined not to understand the analogy, because you apparently already understand Capital, from simply reading it. Most workers, including me, don't, and what's more, although you claim to understand it, you won't explain, any further than quoting from works that are the very ones that are not understood. Surely you can see the logical problem?Unless we find a way of explaining Marx's ideas, that doesn't involve merely repeating Marx's ideas (as if the Victorian method of constant repetition to a 'thick child' will suddenly produce 'enlightenment'), then Capital will remain unread and not understood.Of course, for those who claim to have understood, and not have a commitment to democracy, that situation is fine, because a 'knowing elite' who do understand can provide the 'guidance' for workers'. They can, of course, pretend that this 'guidance' comes from 'material conditions', and so hide their active role in the presence of the passive workers…As for:

YMS wrote:

I remember when I first read those first three chapters and being bowled over by the clarity…

I'm not sure if you're taking the piss out of me.I have never, ever, e v e r, heard anyone say that before. Not even the Leninists or Anarchists. Perhaps it's me who's leading the sheltered life.Or, you are the messiah…

[LBird]

Yeah, evil 'Idealism', the culprit once again.In truth, though, and to be fair to you, Vin, the arguments that you're making are the arguments of (so-called) 'Marxism'.The real revelatory statement, which is nothing to do with Marx, and many thinkers since at least the 1920s have said prevents socialism, because it claims that something other than workers' critical thinking can build socialism, is:

Vin wrote:

Material conditions should guide the working class…

No matter how often workers ask 'what determines our knowledge of what 'material conditions' are?', they can't get an answer. The 'materialists' claim that the 'material conditions' are self-explanatory, and that mere observation and experience of them by workers will suffice, but this is untrue. 'Ideas' determine 'experience' (ie. 'theory and practice'), as science has known for years since Einstein, and as Marx pointed out in Capital, prior to building, the thing to be built must exist in our ideas.How 'material conditions' guide is never explained. The proper method of Marx is to criticise the existing 'material conditions'. So, far from 'guiding', they are to be 'guided' by active, thinking, critical humans, who employ 'ideas' to shape their 'practice'.

Marx, Capital, wrote:

A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement.

[my bold]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htmOn your terms, Vin, Marx was an 'Idealist'. Must be a shock to you, all this 'imagination' stuff, 'before' and 'already existing' our 'material conditions'.Good luck to being lead by the 'mud pies' and 'rocks'. Sorry, 'guided'.My apologies, I won't be joining you on that journey. 'And I'm not the only one…'

[LBird]

So much for my hoping that analogies will explain the mysteries of Marx.YMS, all I can say about your misreading of the analogy of single brick, brick-in-a-wall, wall and dog protection, is that it is consistent with the CR concepts of a component, a component in a structure, structure and emergent property.I think that it helps explain use-value, exchange-value, capitalism and value.If it doesn't for you, that's sad, but hopefully it will help some other comrades less able than you (like me) to get a handle on Marx's poorly explained theories in Capital.Whilst comrades insist that links to texts like 'Value, Price and Profit', or, god forbid, the first three chapters of Capital itself, are sufficient as explanatory aids for workers, I think that the audience for Marx's ideas will continue to shrink.As for the notion that "workers' struggle" in itself will lead to 'consciousness', I think that's not true, and I also think that the SPGB's own strategy actually undermines that belief.It pains me to realise that cult-like behaviour includes reference to texts which are not understandable by the laity. To be clear here, I'm not referring to the SPGB alone, but to what I've started to come to see 'Marxism' in a living sense as.Of course, I  simply don't regard much of today's 'Marxism' as much to do with Marx's ideas, when I've read them for myself.I'm sure that the proponents of 'Marxism' (who I regard as 'Engelsist') will disagree with me, and they're the ones in the so-called "workers' organisations", whereas I'm not any longer, so their views will be the ones taken forward as 'Marxism'.Perhaps it's time to me to face up to the truth, that I really don't have much in common with the SWP, ICC, LibCom or the SPGB, and stop pestering them.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

And because you can't have a detailed discussion, because you don't know the academic basis of your arguments, you turn to personal abuse of me.

 

LBird wrote:

It'd probably be more cost-effective for them to give you five hundred quid every week, and send you to the pub.At least then you wouldn't actually be alienating any workers reading these threads, and ensuring that the SPGB remains marginal.

It's like having my own personal stalker.Do I fascinate you so much, Vin?

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'd rather be unable to grasp but trying to help, than sniggering at 'workers who don't grasp the meaning'. How hilarious.The turn this thread has taken, given the efforts I've made, is illustrative of why the SPGB has no influence amongst workers.

 I am not sniggering at any old worker but one that claims to be the only communist in the village and the only communist capable of explaing exchange value to the workers 

At least you're laughing, Vin.Makes it worthwhile the SPGB having a site just for that, eh?It'd probably be more cost-effective for them to give you five hundred quid every week, and send you to the pub.At least then you wouldn't actually be alienating any workers reading these threads, and ensuring that the SPGB remains marginal.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Lol. I agree. He doesn't grasp the meaning of exchange value.

And yet you apparently do 'grasp the meaning', but won't share it with workers.I'd rather be unable to grasp but trying to help, than sniggering at 'workers who don't grasp the meaning'. How hilarious.The turn this thread has taken, given the efforts I've made, is illustrative of why the SPGB has no influence amongst workers.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

A single brick (as a unstructured component) = a use-value,A brick in a wall (as a part of a structure) = an exchange-value,Dog protection (an emergent property of a wall) = value.Or,A tin of beans for eating = a use-valueA tin of beans for sale as a commodity (the structure of capitalism) = an exchange-valueThe emergent causal power of many commodities to destroy human relationships = value.

Kind of reads like a failed answer to a "what is value, exchange value and use value" exam.I suggest you read those first three chapters again…

Yes, so-called 'experts' like you have been recommending just that, for 100 years, and no workers are listening anymore. It's a failed method.Still, as long as you can laugh at someone at least making an attempt, then that justifies your existence as a 'socialist', eh?Thanks for your help, DJP, the workers salute you.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I have a mild disagreement that the value isn't the relationship but is the outward sign of inward relationship, but that is not to say that saying value is a relationship is wrong, but capable of furtehr refinement.

I’m inclined to regard ‘exchange-value’ as the position in a social relationship, and ‘value’ as the emergent property, the ‘social acid’ that destroys human relationships.To use an analogy that I’ve used before,A single brick (as a unstructured component) = a use-value,A brick in a wall (as a part of a structure) = an exchange-value,Dog protection (an emergent property of a wall) = value.Or,A tin of beans for eating = a use-valueA tin of beans for sale as a commodity (the structure of capitalism) = an exchange-valueThe emergent causal power of many commodities to destroy human relationships = value.These sorts of analogies are endless, and can help get workers into the mindset of regarding the world as composed of components, which put together in certain relationships form structures, and which structures produce emergent properties.Again, components like cogs, springs, dials, hands and a case, put together properly by a watchmaker, produce a watch, which has the power to tell us the time.And structures can act as components for higher level structures, so that a wall (composed of bricks) structured properly with other walls can form a castle, which has an emergent property of military defence. And a number of castles, build in correct geographic locations, can form a chain of forts, from which political domination can emerge.I think that the ontological elements of Critical Realism (components, structures, levels and emergence) can play a didactic role in introducing workers to the complex ideas of Marx which they will find in Capital, especially use-value, exchange-value, commodity and value.It’s my belief that we need to explain these unfamiliar ideas of political economy, which are so baffling, even to many academics, and most of the time to ordinary workers, who need to have an understanding of how exploitation works, and why they must reject the market and money in their entirety (because they produce a substance which is poisonous to humans, and so 'market socialism' is clearly a non-starter), without having to discuss in fine detail every nuance of Marx’s text.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

It's as complex as explaining centimetres, litres, feet and stones.  The application of human labour is the only commonality for commodities.  The Robinson analogy makes things very celar, if we as a community only have a set amount of time available for work, it makes sense to measure tasks by the time taken by members of our society to achieve them. 

But you still haven't given an example of how you would explain 'value' to a worker, who doesn't understand economics.Or are you saying that, if they refuse to accept that they must use economic categories, they must be rejected?

[Author]

Posts