[LBird]

YMS wrote:

A myth may help. Imagine a society in which everyone has a similar set of skills. They use these skills to make/find goods A to E. Not everyone makes these objects, some make A and exchange with others, somoe make B, etc. Each though could make the other objects, and they know both how much effort it would take them to make them and how long otehrs would take. When exchanging, they take great care not to swap goods for objects that it would take less effort to get themselves than they have invested in the the thing they are swapping.Some people may have to put in more energy, or find some tasks harder in their minds and have to concentrate harder, but the others can't se that, all they can see is a rough output each per day.So, the people know that in terms of exchange A>B>C>D>E : that is, A is worth more than B, etc. As with our chess pawns, since E is the least valuable, it becomes possible to express these relative worths in terms of E, i.e. E=1. So D=2E, C=3.5E, etc. so to get a fair swap of D's and C's you'd need to swap 7 D for 4 C's (or fractions to that equivilant). Now, a certain number of hours of effort go into an E, but that doesn't enter into the bargain directly, goods are evauated in terms of the number of E's they are worth, and the relative human effort behind an E remains hidden, but it is there.

Versus

LBird wrote:

Value is a social acid, and it's dangerous to us workers – look at Detroit!

I rest my case, alanjjohnstone.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

T o be uncharitable about these discussions, workers' democracy implies to me that i can safely leave to others to argue the number of angels dancing on a pin-head because in the bigger picture, the threads i have been referring to are not going to be contributing to any social change. It simply isn't engaging the majority, its ideas aren't relating to their reality.

But, is 'value' similar to 'angels on a pinhead'?In fact, I agree with you that it is, for the vast majority of workers, including yourself.But, I draw the conclusion that 'value', being so important a concept, must be explained properly, and the reason that you and many others draw the 'angels/pinhead' conclusion, is that it isn't being explained properly.To me, talking of 'value as a social acid', and then illustrating the socio-economic effects of that 'acid' by showing workers pictures of contemporary Detroit, works well as an explanation. Detroit is clearly being eaten away, decomposing before our very eyes, as if it had been doused with a 'social acid'. Closed factories, boarded-up houses, empty streets… Yeah, Detroit has been exposed to the deleterious effects of 'value', and it's a 'social chemical' coming your way! How hard is that for workers to grasp, and thus recognise the future dangers to them of market, money and capitalism, which produce 'value'?

ajj wrote:

Stop being a diva and prima donna, Lbird. It's cold out there. Come inside, sit yerself down, take off your boots, and warm yourself with the glow of cameraderie and solidarity. No-one i think is suggesting your views should be silenced even if membership may require you to temper you exhortations…

Well, I'm still here, posting and arguing, aren't I?Though, I think the picture of 'the glow of cameraderie' is a little overplayed.Quite frankly, I think there are now 'comrades' on several sites who would quite happily put their political principles into temporary abeyance, and join a 'popular front' with the Nazis to kick f…k out of me.To be serious, I put most of these problems down to the issue of 'materialism'. A few years ago, I was unsure of the depths of the problem, and thought it could be smoothed over by comradely debate, but I'm now totally convinced, thanks to the internet, that 'materialism' is politically dangerous for the proletariat.In fact, I'm not sure of which is the most immediate danger to workers, 'value' or 'materialism'…Both Detroit and so-called "workers' parties" across the world are in a similar state of disarray…

[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.

[Author]

Posts