robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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 .
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
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
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.
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
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
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 goalWell, 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
alanjjohnstone wrote: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
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 eliteYes 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
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
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
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Robbo203,my 2 cents, feel free to ignore since you were asking michel and if you think it matters who answers instead of the quality of the answer.robbo203 wrote:…If gold were to regularly fall from the skies then its value would drop to what is needed to collect it”.Water regularly falls from the sky. So then bottled water which cost $2-$5 each should not exist by your theory. Doesn't the existence of a robust market for bottled water kind of disprove your theory.
No – why should it? I live near a spa town which manufactures bottled mineral water. Quite apart from the extraction process there is the purification process that figures in the costs of production. This is not to mention the cost of the bottles themselves and transportation costs
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:robbo203 wrote:…3) You failed to respond to my point that “If capitalists can just arbitrarily raise their prices or keep their prices high in the face of declining unit production costs then why don’t those capitalists that provide the inputs upon which other capitalists depend to manufacture their commodities, likewise raise the prices of THEIR commodities so that the unit costs of production of those other capitalists, instead of falling will be rising”. If all capitalists, including those who produce intermediate goods as well as those who produce final goods, are able to just arbitrarily raise their prices, then this obviously negates the claim you make about prices in general steadily rising despite the falling costs of production (which would not be falling after all, in relative terms, since the prices of inputs would also be rising!)They do, but what happens is someone in the supply chain buys out the full supply chain. Nike pretty much owns and controlls the entire supply chain for their shoes and invests (owns stock in ) the rubber companies for the shoe rubber, the textile companies for the shoe canvas, etc. in modern capitalism, the manufacturer is easily replaced and easily owned, but the customers are a finite limited resource. If a rubber company asks for too much then nike just starts a new rubber company that it owns to compete with the old rubber compay. Nike can not start a new customer base easily because of brand loyalty and fights for its customers. other times the consolidation of supply chains is done by some middle agent in the supply chain like two companies own 95% of the soft drink market in the USA and just have different labels on different soft drinks that pretend to compete in the market place.
I dont believe this is correct. I stand to be corrected but I believe that Nike outsourced shoe production a long time ago . I recall reading something about this in Naomi Kleins book, No Logo. In any event strictly speaking no single business can possibily own its "full supply chain" given the integrated complexity of modern day production. Even with the very largest business you can think of there comes a cut off point beyond which it is dependent on inputs that derive from beyond its domain of ownership and control Quite apart from anything else this does still does not get round the problem Ive raised. If producers of final goods can just arbitrarily raise their price then why cannot producers of intermediate goods also do that? Insofar as they can also do that then this invalidates Michel's argument about falling production costs because the production costs would be rising in this case , not falling
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:robbo203 wrote:… 5) Relatedly I have asked you several times to explain what would be the point in a business raising its prices so high that it will deter customers from buying its product and encourage them to look to other suppliers. Businesses will tend to pitch their prices at a level at which which they can feel reasonably confident that their product will be sold and that places a very significant limit on how much they can raise their prices. Your response to this is to suggest that capitalists will tend to resort to price fixing, limiting competition between themselves whereby they seek to undercut each other in a price war. But even if this were the case – and there are all sorts of barriers that make this difficult, though not impossibile, to achieve – this would still not get round the basic problem. If some companies raised their prices then consumers, if they continued to purchase those commodities at the same level as before, would have less money available to spend on other commodities. In other words, the market demand for those other commodities would fall and so the companies producing these commodities would be obliged to reduce prices to attract more custom. Its a case of swings and roundaboutsNO those companies would NOT be oblidged to reduce prices to attract more customers. YES, those companies would be obliged to invest money in an advertising campaign. I know. I've worked for those companies on advertising campaigns and as a consultant. A new media campaign is the last and final gasp before a company finally goes bankrupt and gets bought and consolidated by it's competitors. they also routinely hire more new employees before they get bought out or go bankrupt. It's something we in america learn to look for in applying for a job to try and guess how solvent the company is and if our boss is going to pay our salary or not.
If a company X prices a good at twice the level that company Y prices more or the less the same good then its fairly obvious that customers are going to switch loyalty from X to Y. Of course , X is not "obliged" in some legalistic sense to reduce its prices. It is quite at liberty to continue to pigheadedly charge above the going market rate but then customers too are not obliged to contnue loyally buying from X. The likelihood is that they will forsake X for Y in their droves You then assert that a company like X, though it is not obliged to reduce its price, is neverthelss obliged to "invest money in an advertising campaign" – presumably to convince custuomers that while they are paying above the going rate for more or less the same prpduct they are still getting value for money. Again, they are not "obliged" to engage in advertising. You might say instead it would help their cause if they did advertise . But advertising costs money and the higher you want to raise the price of your commodity above the going market rate the more money you are going to have to splash out on advertising to convince people that they are getting "value for money". This puts a rather different complexion on Michels claim that capitalists can just arbitrarily raise prices to whatever they want in the face of falling production costs. He overlooks the hidden costs and risks of raising your prices in a competitive market I would also add that advertising is a zero sum game. To simply retain their same market share, businesses have to spend more on advertising because other businesses are spending more on advertising. . They have to run faster and faster simply to stand still to coin an expression
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Advertising didn't really exist in Marx time the same way it does today. But your making another argument about swings and round abouts and it's maybe similar to the argument about leaches draining a person dry. if one leach sucks all the blood out of a person then the other leaches have less? isn't the total number of leaches limited by the total blood capacity of a town? Well yes, that's true but all the leaches still try to suck the person as hard as they can anyway.Whether or advertising existed in Marx's time is irrelevant to the point being made. If a company X puts up the price of its commodity and its customers continue to loyally buy this commdity from C to the same extent as before then the opportunity costs of their decision to do so is that they will have less money to spend on other commodities. Meaning the market demand for other commodities will diminish to that extent. This reduction in market demand means that the businesses supplying these commodities wil have to adjust prices downwards accordingly
LBird wrote:Alan Kerr wrote:@ LBird,“Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community. All the characteristics of Robinson’s labour are here repeated, but with this difference, that they are social, instead of individual.”(Marx)Yes, Alan, I know Marx's views about 'the democratic control of production by the direct producers' quite well.But I'm asking you about your views.Or are you interpreting Marx to be arguing for a 'Robinson Crusoe' society?It's an easy question to answer, really. Do you think that there is a fourth alternative, 'democratic socialism', to the three that you outlined earlier – individualism, elitism or chaos?If you are arguing for individualism, and calling it 'Robinson Crusoe socialism', that's fine by me – I just disagree with you politically, if that's the case, because I'm a 'democratic socialist', as I think Marx was. If you disagree, too, about Marx and democracy, that's OK by me.
Once again – this seems off topic as far as thsi thead is concerned. Try another thread or start up a new one
Michel, With all due respect, I dont think you have really addressed the points I raised. Let me try to summarise the argument I presented earlier in opposition to your basic thesis that the labour theory of value has been marginalised because there is a growing divergence between, on the one hand, value – and the falling costs of production – and, on the other, prices which have steadily risen as a consequence of this “creative power” you refer to that the capitalists wield in their lust to “accumulate profit”. (Incidentally, since capitalists have always and everywhere striven after increased profits, it is not clear to me why this particular approach of arbitrarily raising your prices away above the falling costs of production should have only come into fashion now in this “post industrial, post modern society” we are supposed to be living in) 1) With regard to the empirical data to support your case, I am not asking for detailed evidence. Something as simple as a large scale study comparing wage rates and prices over a fairly long period of time, will do. The sole piece of evidence that Steve San Francisco presented in support of your argument is not really satisfactory since the firms engaging in price mark ups that the study refers to covered only 40% of all sales. What about the other 60%? I have never denied that some commodities could sell at prices above their notional value but the corrollary of that is that other commodities must sell below their value. Moreover, I presented other evidence pointing to“seven categories of goods and services that are comparatively cheaper today than they were 10 years ago. All figures are based on a BLS comparison of like products and services from August 1998 and August 2008.” These include phones, electronics, footwear, new vehicles, toys, apparel, watches” (http://www.bankrate.com/finance/personal-finance/7-falling-price-tags-1.aspx) 2) You state that there is “no governing law that says the sum total of prices must equal the sum total of values”. Indeed, you state that since some prices have no value in them at all it cannot possibly be true the total sum of prices must equate to the sum total of values. But this is based on a misunderstanding of the labour theory of value. I will simply quote here from the SPGB’s pamphlet on Marxian economics which deals with this very point: Under capitalism nearly everything is a commodity, or takes the form of a commodity, is bought and sold. This qualification is necessary to counter the argument often advanced against the Labour Theory of Value that some things that are bought and sold either are not products of labour or sell at prices quite out of proportion to the amount of labour embodied in them, e.g. land and objects of art. Land, under capitalism, has a price which, in its pure form, is merely the capitalisation of its rent. Land has no value as it is not the product of human labour. Paintings and antiques are indeed products of human labour but are not really commodities because they cannot be reproduced; the concept of "socially necessary labour" therefore has no meaning with reference to such articles. One silly objection is: why is a lump of gold from a meteorite valuable, when there is no labour embodied in it? Actually, this is a confirmation of the Labour Theory of Value since its value is the same as that of gold produced under normal conditions. If gold were to regularly fall from the skies then its value would drop to what is needed to collect it”. 3) You failed to respond to my point that “If capitalists can just arbitrarily raise their prices or keep their prices high in the face of declining unit production costs then why don’t those capitalists that provide the inputs upon which other capitalists depend to manufacture their commodities, likewise raise the prices of THEIR commodities so that the unit costs of production of those other capitalists, instead of falling will be rising”. If all capitalists, including those who produce intermediate goods as well as those who produce final goods, are able to just arbitrarily raise their prices, then this obviously negates the claim you make about prices in general steadily rising despite the falling costs of production (which would not be falling after all, in relative terms, since the prices of inputs would also be rising!) 4) Since the costs of production include the wages bill that employers face, this would suggest a fall in the cost of production in the face of steadily rising commodity prices would translate into a steady fall in the pruchasing power of the working class. In other words that the workers would be gettting poorer and poorer. But this is not the case – at least not over the long run. Over the long run workers’ living standards have generally risen. Growth in living standards at the moment may be sluggish and even negative but this is less to do with capitalists arbitrarily raising prices in the face of falling production costs, than with the weak position of workers in today’s economic climate 5) Relatedly I have asked you several times to explain what would be the point in a business raising its prices so high that it will deter customers from buying its product and encourage them to look to other suppliers. Businesses will tend to pitch their prices at a level at which which they can feel reasonably confident that their product will be sold and that places a very significant limit on how much they can raise their prices. Your response to this is to suggest that capitalists will tend to resort to price fixing, limiting competition between themselves whereby they seek to undercut each other in a price war. But even if this were the case – and there are all sorts of barriers that make this difficult, though not impossibile, to achieve – this would still not get round the basic problem. If some companies raised their prices then consumers, if they continued to purchase those commodities at the same level as before, would have less money available to spend on other commodities. In other words, the market demand for those other commodities would fall and so the companies producing these commodities would be obliged to reduce prices to attract more custom. Its a case of swings and roundabouts There are a number of additional points I could make but I think this will suffice for the moment. I would greatly appreciate it if you could deal with what I have presented here on a point by point basis
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:Alan Kerr wrote:@ LBird,No the alternative is not just democracy as such. The alternative to the market is in Marx’ Capital here.http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA1.html#I.I.133As elaborated on in this article "A World Without Commodities" in this month's Socialist Standard:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2017/no-1357-september-2017/world-without-commodities
Thanks for the link, ALB,I can find mention of 'everything is social instead of individual', 'members', 'common holders of the wealth and resources of society', 'social relations', and,
SPGB article wrote:This is what Marx sketches in his next example, where he describes an ‘association of free men’ who are ‘carrying on their work with the means of production in common’ so that the ‘labour-power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour-power of the community’.Yeah, 'association', 'production in common', 'combined' and 'community'… all fine.The only thing that I can't find is the word 'democracy'. Going by Alan's definition, these words and terms are just paying lip-service to 'social' concepts, because without the inclusion of Marx's democratic political underpinnings, the words are politically meaningless.Without any mention of democratic socialism, as the politically-binding method for all these social concepts, we're left, indeed, with Alan's trio of individualism, elitism or chaos, as our political choice of organising 'social', 'community', 'members', 'production in common', etc.That's my point. Alan seems to have confirmed what I thought that he meant, and you appear to be also confirming this lack of 'democratic socialism'. Unless you don't agree with the article, of course.Am I missing something?
Can this be moved to another as it seems to be off topic here
