Prakash RP

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 226 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: An Incontestable Argument for the Law of Value #230257
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    I’m not, I assure you, ‘willfully misunderstanding’ your point.

    I agree that your view of the two sorts of labour harmonizes with Marx’s classification of labour. I seem to be mistaken on this point. Thank you for pointing to it. I must reflect on it.

    Nevertheless, I can’t see how this classification of labour leads us to the view that commodities (concrete use-values) are reproducible or the view that the abstract labour contained in the concrete labour that creates concrete use-values meant for self-use, Not exchange, doesn’t create value.

    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by Prakash RP.
    in reply to: An Incontestable Argument for the Law of Value #230253
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    So, now you claim that the labour by a person looks like that person!!!

    Would like to know why you need view something like labour, something abstract in itself, as concrete as the person performing it.

    Nevertheless, as I see it, the term use-value stands for both the abstract stuff called the usefulness (in this sense, it’s uncountable always) and the concrete stuff called the commodity (an apple, a building, etc.). The special commodity called labour-power that was discovered by Marx also happens to be an abstract entity the use-value of which is labour, another abstract entity. The use-value meaning a commodity (the labour-power included) is NOT reproducible.

    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by Prakash RP.
    in reply to: An Incontestable Argument for the Law of Value #230230
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    So, you believe that the stuff like ‘labour’ is something ‘concrete’ !!!

    How do you think it looks like– like an apple or a pineapple, sir ?

    And if you think it’s formless, how much is its mass and how much space does it occupy in your view ?

    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by Prakash RP.
    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by Prakash RP.
    in reply to: An Incontestable Argument for the Law of Value #230218
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    Are you sure that the term ‘use-value’ stands only for something abstract like the service of a doctor or the performance of a popstar, NOT something like an LED bulb or an apple ?

    in reply to: An Incontestable Argument for the Law of Value #230213
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    But, to prove your point, you used the expression ‘produce the same use-value again’ to mean ‘make another example of it.’ (your reply #230179)

    I consider the use of the term ‘same’ in such a way is outright disputable. You cannot ‘produce the same use-value again’. And furthermore, in order to produce an ‘example’ (i.e. an exact replica) of something concrete (a certain ‘use-value’), you need not reproduce it (‘produce the same use-value again’), the way I see it.

    in reply to: An Incontestable Argument for the Law of Value #230200
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    I won’t take exception to terms like equivalent, equal, identical, similar or similar in all respects. I’m outright opposed to using the term ‘same’ in any of these senses.Two doctors equally qualified & experienced may be equivalent to one another, but they cannot be the same person as they’re two distinct entities.

    The property called ‘“fungibiulity”’ makes two concrete things mutually interchangeable; it cannot turn them into one thing.

    in reply to: An Incontestable Argument for the Law of Value #230188
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    So, you’ve made it clear that you’re unaware of the distinction between the term ‘same’ and the term similar. You’re certainly wrong. The fact is you’re mistaking a use-value for another because the two use-values (two concrete things) are similar or equal in usefulness. You seem to be unable to grasp the simple fact that two triangles can be equal or similar in all respects, but none of them can be the same as the other.

    I’m certainly correct to view two similar concrete things as similar. An exact replica of something concrete is certainly something new. Nevertheless, it’s not an invention nor a discovery if it was done by someone before.

    As I stated before, we cannot reproduce anything concrete; nevertheless, the amount of value of anything is reproducible.

    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by Prakash RP.
    in reply to: An Incontestable Argument for the Law of Value #230176
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    The production of new things is NOT the reproduction of any concrete things.

    It’s your claim that ‘of course vials containing [COVID-19 vaccine] are reproducible’ (your reply #230154) that we’re arguing about. Evidently, your claim adds up to claiming that you can reproduce a vial and its content.

    My point is the reproduction of anything concrete is NOT possible. Nevertheless, the amount of value of anything is reproducible.

    in reply to: An Incontestable Argument for the Law of Value #230159
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    But, today isn’t the same day as the yesterday was, and the present hour, minute or second is Not the same as the past hour, minute or second.

    Changes in form may certainly lead to the creation of new things. Proofs: a monolith & the statue sculpted out of it; any two humans; any two LED bulbs.

    in reply to: An Incontestable Argument for the Law of Value #230149
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    An invention, such as a therapy (e.g. the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine) or an LED bulb, is certainly something new. A statue sculpted out of a large monolith is certainly something new and different from the remaining part of the monolith.
    Nevertheless, what matters most in this debate is just as a woman cannot re-conceive a baby of hers, anything existent cannot be reproduced. While producing LED bulbs, workers produce similar bulbs; they do not produce or reproduce the same bulb really. Nevertheless, they reproduce something and keep on doing it, and that something is the same amount of value. It’s the value of a commodity, be it a pearl ball or a work of art, not the commodity itself, that happens to be reproducible always, as I see it.

    I cannot see any good reason why the labour theory of value should fail to hold true for new, reproduced amounts of value.

    in reply to: An Incontestable Argument for the Law of Value #230136
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    I’ve already stated that by my view, a commodity is a useful thing with some human labour incorporated in it (#229859; #229892; #229912;). You contradicted this view on the grounds that it leaves out of account the condition of reproducibility of the commodity (#229400). I dealt with this objection in my reply #229816. I still stick to my position on this question. My main points are as follows.

    1. The stuff all commodities have got in common is value.
    2. The value is the product of useful human labour.
    3. Value doesn’t originate during exchange.
    4. No value means No market-value, hence No market-prices. Hence, only commodities can be bought & sold.
    5. In order to be a commodity, a useful thing must possess some value; nevertheless, it (a pearl ball) doesn’t need to be reproducible by human labour.

    To the above, I’d like to add these:

    6. Value (e.g. the value of a pearl ball or a poultry egg) is reproducible always, but a commodity (a pearl ball or an egg) is not reproducible.
    7. If value doesn’t originate during the production of a commodity, it cannot originate during its reproduction.
    8. In fact, No commodities are, as No pearl ball is, reproducible.

    As two glasses do Not contain the same water, i.e. the same molecules of water although each molecule of water happens to be an exact replica of another, two LED bulbs of equal wattage cannot be the same bulb with two bodies. I’m afraid you’ve mussed this point.

    I’m not acquainted with any work by Paresh Chattopadhyay. Nevertheless, I’d like to know his main points in this regard.

    • This reply was modified 8 months, 1 week ago by Prakash RP.
    in reply to: An Incontestable Argument for the Law of Value #230116
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    How do you want to define a commodity?

    in reply to: An Incontestable Argument for the Law of Value #230115
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    ‘There’s a technical term for this kind of statement. “Over egging the pudding”’

    It’s No logic. Such statements only show that the respondent has exhausted his faculty of reason, I’m afraid to say.

    in reply to: An Incontestable Argument for the Law of Value #230100
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    ‘So you think that, for example before 1998 when the minimum wage was introduced in the UK, the trend there was for wages to be below subsistence? And that wages are now above that level only because of this legislation?’

    What do you think led the UK to introduce the minimum wages act ?

    in reply to: An Incontestable Argument for the Law of Value #230099
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    Yes, slaves were ‘bought and sold outright’ by their masters while wage slaves are bought and sold on the daily basis by themselves. Neither group has got the freedom of not getting sold for survival. If a slave refused, after his master’s death, to work under (and thus sell his labour-power to) another master, he’d be deprived of the bare necessities (wages in kind) of life and have to die ultimately. The wage slaves too are left with No other option than to sell their labour-power daily to a capitalist for subsistence-level wages.

    Wages (market-prices of labour-power) can hardly rise above the subsistence level since they’re determined by laws of supply & demand, and since the labour markets are in general flooded with labour-power.

    From above, it clearly follows that the state of a wage slave is Not in essence significantly different from that of a slave.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 226 total)