[robbo203]

MBellemare wrote:

 Marx had the notion that value was finite and quantifiable and that price was also finite and quantifiable. Because price/value were finite and quantifiable, at the macro-level, they could equate, but equate only in a simple reproductive model where things are finite and quantifiable, thus balanced and stable. In an exansive-reproductive-model, something unquantifiable always reaches out, introducing a new variable into the system, which destabilizes the system, which destablizes aggregate value and aggregate price at the micro-level, constantly. In my estimation, this proves the multi-varied nature of value as something which is creative, unquantifiable and infinite, meaning that price can be unquantifiable, creative and infinitely increased (in theory, may be not in actuality).         

 If prices can be" infinitely increased" or even massively increased, Michel. what would be the point of the exercise  if it meant the workers/consumers could no longer afford the commodities in question? Any capitalists who priced their goods too high would simply price themselves out of the market and out of business.  The law of competition has historically entailed businesses undercutting each other pricewise and if perchance certain prices  do go up for reasons of fashion or fad then necessarily certain other prices have to come down as the pattern of market demand shifts from the latter to the former.  You cannot conjure market demand out of nowhere or pluck it off a magic money treeAlso while we are talking of prices, what about the price of labour power – our wages?  Would you say that this too "can be unquantifiable, creative and infinitely increased"?  I only wish that were true!    

[robbo203]

MBellemare wrote:

@Robbo  post number #241, the last paragraph Again, in post-industrial, post-modern capitalist society, every moment of a workers life is immersed in production and in consumption, simultaneously, both mental and physical, whether he is at the office and/or at home and/or on holiday. So the lines are blurred between production and consumption, as a result, surplus value is realized in the two forms, both quantifiable and unquantifiable. Why do you hold on to the idea that somehow value must be solely produced in production, as Marx did. Marx seem to think production and consumption were rigid, separated, definite spheres, and maybe, in 1867, they were. But they are not anymore, they are blurred.  Increasingly, in this thread, me and some are speaking from two different epistemes, paradigms etc. I am speaking from the 21st century, dealing with real 21st century issues such as inflated CEO salaries that have nothing to do with labor-time expenditures, while, many of the responses on this thread are speaking from a by-gone era, really, out of date stuff.I understand Marx quite well, I've been reading him for 20 years, and I don't think another 20 years will bring me to ever accept that his 1867 analysis is whole-heartedly valid, across the board, for the current post-industrial era, we are currently living in.The fact that capitalism has not come to an end, as Marx predicted a long-time ago, is because capitalism has found a way to subvert socially necessary labor-time as the determinant of price, value and wage. Capialism has unshackled itself from any rational labor theory of value. Hence, capitalism's jump to post-industrialism and post-modernism in many spheres of production and consumption. This incongruity in capitalism and in its relation to a rational labor-theory of value has made Marx's analysis suspect. Hence, for the last 5 years, I've been reading Marx trying to pin-point areas where capitalism has overturned his rational analysis. Where capitalism has out-done itself in relation to Marx's analysis. And a primary area where capitalism, is outdoing Marx's analysis, is the area concering value, price and wage. Another glarring area, I have discovered, is where Marx discusses decreasing production costs in relation to decreasing prices. I have found the socio-economic phenomenon of decreasing productions costs in relation to ever-increasing prices. This is fundamentally, a post-industrial, post-modern, socio-economic phenomena, not a modern one. Where modernity still holds then Marx's notion still exists. But the post-industrial, post-modern, socio-economic phenomena, I've outlined, is real and is occuring, as well.It may be that both the socio-economic phenomena, the one I outline and the one Marx outlines, are part of one mechanism by which capitalists can shift gears. (That is where my thinking is at with this socio-economic analysis).I am not on this forum to argue whether I am right or wrong, whether I have understood Marx correctly or Not!I am here to explore, constructively, our contemporary socio-economic situation, specifically, these areas. Not to get Marx regurgitated at me, verbatim. Because my socio-economic analysis does not fit his analysis. My analysis is not suppose to fit Marx's analysis verbatim, we are living in two different eras, two different types of capitalism.I would like to hear from others on this forum where my socio-economic analysis overlaps with Marx's analysis, instead. Where are our points of agreement, rather than our points of disagreement.          

  Michel, I would not disgaree with your point that Marx got it wrong on occasions.   He clearly did make mistakes. And I understand your point about the tendency in the modern world for production to become more blurred with consumpton.  Years ago I read several books by the futurologist, Alvin Toffler , in which he talked of an emerging "prosumer economy" (the combination of prpducton and consumption) and the decline of Fordist mass production  techniques being increasing crowded out by computer-aided "Lean  production" techniques originating  after the Second World War in Toyota's factories So yes in many respects the world is a very different place today compared to the one in which Marx wrote Das Kapital.  Even so, I have very serious reservations about your claim that his core theory his been marginalised by the development of capitalism into a post-modern post-industrial system (though you seem to acknowlege that his theory still holds good in some parts of the world where old fashioned factory production cntinues such as in the export processing zones of so called Third World countries and elsewhere You say "Increasingly, in this thread, me and some are speaking from two different epistemes, paradigms etc".  This may be part of the problem – that you are employing a definition of "value" that is radically different from Marx's.  But that doesnt invalidate Marx's definition or marginalise its significance and you can only attempt to demonstrate that it does by starting  from within the theory itself and relating it to the world around us. As I said, the basic postulate of the theory is that aggregate prices must equate in the end with aggregate values and that this logically follows from the very essence of the theory itself – that value only reveals itself in exchange, in market sales.  Individual prices can and must diverge from their values but overall, in the aggregate, they must logically equate .Your argument however, as  I understand  it, is that they increasingly do not equate and  that there is growing divorce at the macro or aggregate level between Value and Prices and this is expressed as a tendency for the costs of production to decline and for the price of commodities to keep on rising. I have pointed out that while it is certainly true that some prices notably those of branded goods have risen it is equally true that other have fallen in relative terms.    I have also pointed out – see the detailed arguments in post 198 – that if prices in general were rising then this would include also the prices of  inputs or intermediate goods and that would then contradict your claim about the costs of production declining since in this case they would be rising.  And finally I have pointed out that there are opportunity costs involved in just arbitrarily raising proces.   Consumers have limited budgets and if they have to pay more for some things then that means they have less money to spend on other things.  That means the market for those other things must surely contract and the way businesses responding to contracting markets is not to raise their prices but to lower them. Therse are important criticisms of your main theory, Michel, and I do urge you to deal with them.  There is a lot of useful stuff that you say in your theory but I think by accommodating more of what Marx has to say on the subject of value and price, a more robust theory could emerge as result

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 LBird's contributions to an analysis of the Party's case may well be rejected by many of us, but should it be jettisoned completely? Does it hold some element of truth? 

Well, as far as I am concerned, Alan, the one element of truth in LBird's stance is his rejection of positivist thinking.  Other than that, the guy is very obviously a troll who is not interested in constructive debate at all, who ignores any kind of question asking him to explain how his proposal could work in practice and who will lie through his teeth to score a point as he sees it. – such as robbo is an opponent of democracy – when I am very obviously counterposing my conception of democracy to his conception of democracy as society wide centralised decisionmaking without any kind of localised or intermediate levels  of democacy at all.  Similarly his stupid  characterisation of his opponents as "bourgeois individualists"; by that warped reasoning Marx would qualify pre-eminently as a bourgeois individualist! The guy is simply not interested in debate and – Gawd knows – Ive tried like others here to encourage him to explain his ideas and justify them.   All he is interested in is the sound of his own voice.  I  wouldnt waste any more time on him, Alan, to be brutally frank  Socialists have better things to do than indulge a monomaniac whose only interest here is to push his pet theory to the exlcusion of anything else

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I've got no problem whatsoever with robbo peddling his anti-democratic shite openly – it should help to provoke thought amongst democratic socialists. What concerns me is that I'm the only one here openly challenging him, and defending democracy in social production.

 Youve got some barefaced cheek, LBird, lying through your teeth like that.  Ive stated on umpteen occasions and I am getting bored with having to repeat myself – I support the concept of democracy fully.  For me, a socialist society  will be a society in which democracy will flourish  at many levels – local , regional and global.  I just do not support  YOUR concept of "democracy" as society wide totally centralised, decision-making with no other form of decisionmaking being permissable. In practice YOUR concept of "democracy" will turn out to be the absolute opposite of democracy.  You dont care to admit this because, at base, your ideology is a Leninist one and you are embarrassed  to have been outed as a Leninist

LBird wrote:

So, here goes – does the SPGB (or even just one member) argue for the democratic production of social truth? If not, who or what is to be the social producer of social truth within the 'socialism' that the SPGB envisages?

 You will be had pushed to find anyone, let alone any member of the SPGB,  to support your crackpot idea of holding, literally, tens of thousands of global plebiscites every year to determine the "truth" of  all those scientific theories that are chruned out each year.  I cant believe anyone can come up with such a dumb idea.  What on earth would be the point of the exercise, anyway?. If I believe in a particular scientific theory and a majority vote against what is supposed to happen? Am I suppose to relinguish the theory I support or what?  You dont explain .  You NEVER explain.  You have no idea of what democracy is supposed to be for.  Frankly I  think you are just a poseur  who has fallen in love with the sound of your own voice. That is why you are not prepared to seriously argue your case and persistantly back away from any kind of searching question that exposes your ideas for the nonsense they clearly are 

[robbo203]

I dont know  if folks here have come across this site which seems to be operated by a rabid anti marxist (I have an inkling who he may; he signs himself off as LK).There is an article in it which is fundamentally critical of what the writer sees as  Marx's bleak and erroneous views on the effect of increasing productivity leading to the cheapening of commodities – namely, to shorten the amount  of time spent on necessary labour, thereby increasing the amount of time spent on surplus labour.  In other words, the writer thinks Marx thought the worker got absolutely  no bnefits at all from increased productivity in term of a higher standard of living          http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com.es/2016/02/marxs-capital-volume-1-chapter-12.html .  

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

When I ask you, or robbo, or anyone else, to answer the question 'Do you support the democratic production of social truth?', you answer 'No'.

Yes thats quite true. I dont support the "democratic production of truth"  …

So, you are quite openly making a political decision without, and prior to, the organised, class conscious, working class.Why this doesn't ring massive alarm bells with those in the SPGB who really believe that they are democrats, I don't know. Perhaps no-one gives a shit.

robbo203 wrote:

…The idea is totally impractical as well as totally unneccessary.  That is not what democracy is for.  Democracy is about practical decisons… 

Here, again, is an ideology that has pre-decided for workers, what is impractical, what is necessary, what democracy is for.Surely, for anyone hoping to build for democratic socialism, only the workers themselves can determine these issues, not The Great Man robbo, who has as much regard for workers' democracy as Uncle Joe, never mind Lenin.And, once again, 'practical' is put ahead of 'theoretical' in robbo's political method – and this is the exact opposite of Marx's social method of 'theory and practice'.This means, in political terms, according to Marx's method, that robbo himself will supply the 'theory' that precedes his 'practice' – he's hiding his 'theory', and pretending that it's all just 'practical' stuff (and by this he means 'individual practice').robbo is lying to workers, when he denies having any theory. He has a theory, and it's an elitist one. Workers, beware.'Socialism', for robbo, is robbo's theory and practice.

 LOL LBird – I am not the one who is "pre-deciding" anything .  The only one who is doing that is you, chum!  Show me a single living worker apart from yourself who seriously argues  that tens of  thousands  of scientific theories that are churned out every single year should be subjected to a global plebiscite involving 7 billion plus individuals.  Why you would want to implement such a monumentally stupid, pointless and wasteful procedure I have no idea but  you seem quite determined that this is what "democratic communism"  should entail though, as I say, I have yet see anyone else  rallying to support your madcap idea.   Seriously you are a one off.  Absolutely unique and idiosyncratic. Still, I guess its what makes the world go round – and a little more interesting than it would otherwise be

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 So, if the SPGB is not 'Leninist' in its ideology (even I'll grant that the SPGB's is not a 'democratic centralist' organisation, like the SWP, of which I have personal political experience), why does it publish documents and threads that claim to support 'democracy', but it doesn't support democratic social production (including ideas, of course)?When I ask you, or robbo, or anyone else, to answer the question 'Do you support the democratic production of social truth?', you answer 'No'..

 Yes thats quite true. I dont support the "democratic production of truth"  not because I am not a democrat but because the idea of putting scientific theories etc to a global democratic vote  is PLAIN BONKERS.  Its as simple as that.  When is LBird going to get that through his skull? The idea is totally impractical as well as totally unneccessary.  That is not what democracy is for.  Democracy is about practical decisons that affect us – locally regionally and globally – and I support that. LBird, however,  does not    He wants a system of totally centralised decisionmaking whereby literally the whole of society is supposed to decide on literally everything.  Since there are billions of decisions to be made and since LBird has emphatically ruled out any kind of devolved or local desicionmaking whatsoever who is going to make these decisions since clearly 7 billion people  will have neither the time nor the inclination to make them?  Thats right – the people who will make these decisions will be a tiny techncratic elite.  In the name of democracy LBird's daft ideas will kill democracy stone dead. This is what makes LBird in de facto terms a Leninist and it doesnt surprise me in the least given his background as a one time supporter or member of the Trotskyist SWP

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 What did I predict?Slanders and lies, as usual, the political method of the 'materialists'. In a word, Leninism.Those who actually read what I write, and are very careful of the lies of the 'materialists', will be aware that 'society-wide democratic planning' (Marx's ideas about 'social production') has been consciously and deliberately altered by robbo to confuse the unwary as 'society-wide central planning'.robbo thus anticipates his own political regime, in which he as an individual is at the centre of his planning.Individualists, like robbo, will always deny democracy, because they have a 'fear of the mob'. Individualism is a ruling class idea, a social product of the bourgeoisie, and must start from concepts like 'matter', which all individuals claim to 'know', by their individual, biological, asocial, ahistoric, senses. Thus, they don't need to discuss social theory, social practice, or the place of democracy within the social production of socialism.Thus, he defines 'democracy' as 'centralism'.Democratic Communists / Marxists define 'democracy' as 'society-wide'.

 Amusing.  LBird has the gall to accuse socialists of engaging in "slanders and lies" against him  having himself  just just accused them of opposing democracy or democractc decisionmaking in socialism which is demonstrably false.  The truth is socialists have a more nuanced and grounded view of what democracy entails than has LBird.  We recognise that there will necessarily different levels of democratic decisionmaking in socialism – local , regional and global.  We also recognise, along wth Marx, that in socialism the “free development of each is the condition for  the free development of all" and that the very nature  of socialism requires this.  How else do you operate a society based on voluntary cooperation and free accesss without individuals being able to choose for themselves in these matters as opposed to having those decisions imposed on you from above? The truth is democacy and individual freedom/autonomy are not opposites as LBird stupidly perists in maintaining but are absolutely complementary to each other.  The one needs the other for both to exist.  Its a question of striking the right balance.  Too much of either undermines or destroys both. LBrid understands nothing of this.  His views on democracy are childishly simplistic and embarrasingly dumb.  He has got no understanding of the mechanics or the logistics of decsionmaking  and for all his religious-like proclamations about democracy  –  "I am a democratic communist", doh! –  in reality,  his kind of totalitarian thinking will deliver a world  from which any kind of real democracy would be utterly extinguished.   He has just now admitted that his model of decision making is one in which all decisions are made at a "society wide" level.  Meaning 7 billion plus people are going to have to decide on literally  EVERYTHING – from whether or not your local communty needs a new library or doctors surgery  right down to what you as an individual will be allowed to consume or contribute by way of work.  If such a crackpot idea were even remotely feasiable,  which thankfully it is not , it would absolutely require all  such centralised decsionmaking to be concentrated in the hands of tiny technocratic elite – if only by default. This is in effect what LBird advocates though he lacks the wit to see it.  He seems to think that society wide decisionminaking is "democratic" while centralised decisionmaking is not.  But if there is only one body of  decisionmaking and only one centre – namely the whole of society  – then that is by definiition centralised or unicentric, not polycentric.  :LBird opposes in principle the whole idea of polycentric decision-making.  Therefore he advocates society wide central planning from a single centre  and therefore he is Leninist and an opponent of real democracy  for all his bluster to the contrary.  He stands firmly side by side with his comrade Lenin in advocating that " The whole of society will have become a single office and a single factory, with equality of labor and pay" (State and Revolution). It is not for no reason that Lenin favoured a policy of top down "one-man management" and argued that democracy was completely compatible with dictatorship by a single individual .  Given a chance to put his balmy ideas into practice Lbird would argue exactly along the same lines and all in the name of "democracy" of course.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 If not, you'll follow the political trajectory of Lenin..

 Whuch  is precisely what LBird is doing with his advocacy of society wide central planning

[robbo203]

Since  LBird seems intent on hijacking the "Socialism and Change" thread, as he has done with so many other threads, with his ridiculous claims about socialists not being democrats,  I thought it fit and proper to resurrect this old thread which is  the more appropiraterate place in which to conduct such a debate. Let us see if he can rebut the arguments presented here. At the end of the day,  for all his bluster, the only one here who truly conforms to a "Leninist" point of view in the way he envisages the future organisation of a socialist society is LBird himself

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

The main problem I have with the article is that though it talks of the need to  have a plan about how to get to socialism, it  doesnt really define  socialism.  That is the the problem with the left in general.  You cant really move forward unless you have some clear  idea of where you want to move forward to – your end goal

Well, I've tried to discuss this with you and the rest here, and when I define 'socialism' as 'the democratic control of social production', your response is 'why is there a need for democracy in social production?'.I've got no problem with someone arguing that 'the democratic control of social production' is a bit vague, and needs more detail, but the challenging of 'democracy' itself, leaves me baffled.As far as I can tell, 'your end goal' seems to be 'free individuals', but this tells any worker asking nothing about 'social production' or, indeed, 'socialism'.

 As far as i can tell you are being disinegenuous again in pursuit  of your  same old hobby horse.  Ive spelt exactly what I mean by democratic control of the means of production in socialism and why I support  it.  You can find my statement here  http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/socialism-and-democracy If you want to develop your argument do it there not here.  Please dont try to hijack this thread to push your own agenda, LBird, as  you have done with so many threads in the pastThank you

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

https://dissidentvoice.org/2017/09/do-you-socialists-have-any-plans/Discuss.

 This bit is quite important I think: "You will never get people to join your parties, groups or whatever they are on the basis of saying how bad things are. What do you think happens? Do you think we are going to stand up and say, “Things are so bad, I’ve had enough! I’m going to rebel!”? No, people say, “This is too much. I don’t want to hear it anymore”. And then we go watch a ballgame, have a beer and root for a team." The main problem I have with the article is that though it talks of the need to  have a plan about how to get to socialism, it  doesnt really define  socialism.  That is the the problem with the left in general.  You cant really move forward unless you have some clear  idea of where you want to move forward to – your end goal The left broadly speaking sees state ownership or intervention in the economy  as the way forward, real socialism in our sense of the term is something beyond the horizon , something that is supposed to come afterwards and to which they all pay lip service amongst themselves but, even so, to talk about that now is considered "utopian".  However, state ownership and state intervention has been tried and has proven to be a cul de sac that leads to nowhere except more of the same. "Weve done that and got the Tshirt" is the usual sentiment it evokes.   The left then wonders why most workers fail to treat them seriously or feel inspired by what they have to offer.  So they – the left – retreat from programmatic macro-economic declarations about nationalising the "commanding heights" of industry into the quagmire of identity politics where at least by focussing on, or cynically exploiting, some single issue cause they can be assured of a few more votes or a few more members However, there are straw in the wind that things may be changing.  Ive noticed an increasing receptiveness in left wing forums in the last few years  to big bold statements about socialism that bring  out clearly and unequivocally  its nonmarket , moneyless , wageless classless and stateless character.  There is mileage to be had in being positively utopian, after all – with the emphasis very definitely on being positive.  Blaming capitalism all the time  (which we all do) is Ok up to a point but  it can be counteproductive and disempowering after a while.  Like the article suggests, people then get the feeling that there is nothng much they can do about something so comprehensively invasive and abstract as "capitalism"  so they retreat into themselves and the more mundane and manageable aspects of their own lives Like Oscar Wilde said:  A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias

[robbo203]

Marcos wrote:

It was the same mistake/distortion made by Lenin. He did not define economic exploitation at the point of production. He defined economic exploitation based on the salary of the workers of the colonies indicating that the exploitation of the workers in the colonies was higher than the exploitation at the metropolis. In reality, it was the opposite way because the workers at the metropolis were producing more surplus value. Left wingers like to make boycotts to certain commodities from certain countries indicating that exploitation takes places at the point of sale instead of at the point of production. They continue with the same argumentation of Lenin and they do not understand that capitalism has replaced colonialism, and workers are exploited at the point of production in all parts of the worlds by the ruling elite

 Yes indeed Marcos.  Lenin's "labour aristocracy" thesis is bunkum from start to finish. The idea that the metropolitan capitalists would "bribe" their workers – or at least a particular stratum of mainly skilled workers – out of the superprofits derived from their colonial investments abroad to ensure theese workers political compliance to the system makes absolutely no sense. If the "bribe" was presumably  incorporated into the pay packet of workers,  you might just as well pay the workers more without the bribe – hardly something any employers would be inclined to do for some vague poiltical objective anyway – given the need for employeres to hold costs including labour costs . to remain competitive.  There is plenty of other evidence to throw doubt on the whole idea including one argument I came across by the Trot, Tony Cliff, that wage differentials were greater in European countries that possessed no  colonies compared with those other European countries that possesssed colonies.  If the labour aristrocracy thesis was correct , you would expect this to be the other way round

[robbo203]

MBellemare wrote:

   I am correct on this! Because, if you were correct, @DJP@Marcos@Kerr, capitalism would have ended a long, long time ago! The death knell of capitalism would have sounded decades and decades ago. The fact that you cannot even admit fault with Marx's analysis is fatal to your understanding of Marx, it means you good folks are fetishizing Marx into a religious opiate to sooth your Marxian souls, weary of struggle, and ready to sleep.  

 Michel, With respect, I dont think that is a reaonable charactersation of folk here at all.  Speaking for myself, although I know others here would endorse this view, there are quite a few things that Marx wrote with which I strongly disagree and which I have touched on in other threads on this forum.  Marx's writings are not something to be slavishly followed but nor are they to be unfairly dismissed in blanket fashion without good reason The labour theory of value is an immensely powerful tool for working class emancipation if properly understood and applied.   So many of Marx's critics fail to understand his method.  All theoretical models are simulcra – simplifications of reality.  That means many factors are ignored or held constant in order to discover the unique effect of a particular variable under investigation.  This ceteris paribus assumption is particularly applicable to economic models and Marx made full use of it.  Michael Harrington describes this process rather well in his book Socialism (1972):  Therefore the reader must be warned that the opening pages of Das Kapital – or, for that matter, the entire first volume – contain conscious simplifications.  Marx, like everyone else, actually began with the "chaotic whole” of immediate experience, but in his masterpiece he follows a logical rather than an experiential order.  So in understanding any part of the Marxian analysis one must carefully ask: Under what simplifying assumptions is it subsumed”   As Marx's argument unfolds, one "conscious simplification" after another, disappears.   In your post 223 you not only fail to understand his method but also attribute to him a view which, quite simply, he never held and which quite frankly he explicitly argued against on numerous occasions. You assert:  "Capitalism is predicated on this artificial fabrication of value, price and wage as it pertains to workers' and their labor-power. They, the working population, must continually accept less for the actual value of their labor-power, in order for capitalism and profit to persist."and"Marx had it wrong! He seemed to claim that labor-power was sold at its value (at least from the capitalist's point of view), but it never is. Labor-power is the only commodity that is never exchanged at its actual value and price" This is wrong on several counts. The idea that commodities sold at their value was precisely the kind of simplification that Marx begins with but which he progressively moves away from as his analysis strives to more closely approximate real world conditions so that he ends up saying that commodities do not in fact sell at their values but rather AROUND their "price of production"  (their cost of production plus the average rate of profit) and that, moreover, the actual prices at which they sell are subject to short term fluctuations in supply and demand.  You mistakenly take Marx's initial simplification to be his final postulate on the matter and in the process misunderstand his argument Not only that, you fail to see that the very view you attribute to Marx is one that he rejected.  Marx did not say, even as a conscious simplification, that labour power was sold for less than its value and that this was the reason why workers were being exploited.  On the contrary, he said, the worker was generally paid a "fair price" for her labour power.    Exploitation arose, not becuase the worker was paid less than the value of her labour power but, rather, because when in the course of applying her labour in the form of waged work for her employer, she produces a value in the form of her product  that exceeds the value of the wage she received. In other words, absolutely central to Marx's theory of exploitation was the distinction between labour and labour power.  Your failure to understand this explains why you come out  with claims such as this: "Labor-power must be constantly bought by capitalists at a lower price/value than it is in actually worth. And for this to happen, capitalists must artificially/arbitrarily fabricate and manipulate the value/price of labor-power at a lower value/price, than it is actually worth". This boils down to sayng that the capitalists exploits the workers by artifically/arbitraily raising the price of the workers' product above their value. In other words that profits are made at the point of sale rather than the point of production. But that is, as I say logically and empirically incorrect and you have still to answer the case against this basic claim of yours which I set out in some detail in post  no 198 of this thread

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

So back to the tree and forest analogy from above.  By your reasoning if one tree grows taller and captures more of the sun then that means the other trees must shrink and grow smaller because they get less sun?  It would seem that's your argument, but it's not supported by reality looking at a forest or a marketplace.  Individual trees only grow up and never shrink. Trees might die off but they don't decrease in size.  Companies rarely shrink too, and usually only grow or die or get replaced or bought out and merged. 

 False analogy. Trees may not decrease in size but a sum of money certainly can! .  If you spend more on one thing within a given budget then what that means, all things being equal, is that you will have a smaller sum of money left over to spend on something else. THAT was the point I was making and that I think is indeed "fairly obvious" Relating this to Michel's claim that businesses are able to arbitrarily raise their prices in the case of certain goods,  the opportunity cost of this – assuming the same volume of sales is maintained in the case of these goods – is that the market demand for other goods will go down,  And since the demand for these other goods goes down so too will their price – thus invalidating the suggestion that prices in general can be raised in this fashion (they can by inflating the currency but that is another matter) And companies can shrink too,  Nike which you earlier wrongly claimed "pretty much owns and controls the entire supply chain for their shoes " actually pulled out of shoe production as such to focus more on the branding and marketing side of the business.  This tendency to downsize and shed loads of workers by outsourcing various aspects of production , distirbution and even internal accounting is far nore common than you imagine and, if I remember correctly, there is a whole chapter devoted to precisely this development in Naomi Kleins book, No Logo

[Author]

Posts