robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
J P Morgan wrote:Can you recommend an article, or provide a link, that gives the Marxian explanation of the bank rate. I'd be obliged.
Came across this http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1967/no-751-march-1967/money-nothing
J P Morgan wrote:Can you recommend an article, or provide a link, that gives the Marxian explanation of the bank rate. I'd be obliged.Try the search facility at the top right hand corner. It comes up with some stuff but I am not sure if that is what you are looking for. Good luck
MBellemare wrote:Yes, Steve San Francisco, you are banging your head against a wall, a certain wall of ideologues, trapped in the past. Semantics and the ignoring of concrete facts as somehow illigitimate, is the last resort of an outdated argument backed-up against the wall, a dying argument. So don't fret too much about it, this is how new paradigms come to the foreground. To be positive and optimistic, one can only hope on this forum, that some, who are truly interested in furthering knowledge, will examine the evidence objectively. The fact is that Marx's analysis cannot fully explain the post-industrial condition. He is helpful in pointing in the right direction and offers good insights, but cannot explain a litany of post-modern, socio-economic phenomena, which are out of reach of Das Capital. So let me quote, the American, philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, who can incapsulate how these issues with Marx and his ideologues will be resolved:Michel I hope this is not an endorsement on your part, as an anarchist, of Steve San Francisco's ludicrous statement:Capitalist call that a store and it fits the definition of "an immense accumulation of commodities". Socialist call it a store and it fits the definition of "an immense accumulation of commodities". As an anarchist, I take it you would agree that the kind of society we are all looking toward – socialsm – would indeed entail the complete disappearance of all commodity production – of buying and seling – however much we might disagree on how to get there On the question of examining the evidence objectively I am very keen to do precisely that. Ive cited some evidence already that seems to call into question your central thesis that Marx.'s Labour Theory of Value has been effectively marginalied by modern or, should I say, post modern developments. I am not convinced by your argument but I am open to persuasion. I think the argument you have presented thus far is too one sided and fails to see the wood for the trees, In relative tems, though some prices have risen sharply, for reasons such as branding (although I think you overlook the costs of marketing which have also to be factored into the equation), others have fallen as you would expect with rising industrial productivity and declining unit costs (adjusted for inflation) Could you perhaps address some of the concerns that I raised in post 129?
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:robbo203 wrote:robbo203 wrote:MBellemare wrote:I never said Marx's critique is no longer valid, I said it is marginalized, i.e., that capitalism functions according to a different, post-modern, post-industrial logic, that no longer holds scientific quantification of labor-power as first and foremost, but merely as a secondary minor consideration. What was in Marx's time an exception, i.e., the arbitrary construction of values, prices, and wages, where no labor-power is found, is now primary. That is all I've said. Marx readily admits that value and price can be dreamed-up and applied to thing. I merely state that now this sort of thing is primary to any quantifiable theory/law of value. By doing this, I can rightly explain from a post-industrial, post-modern point of view, why prices are rising as production costs drop, why there is ever-increasing financial inequality, why there is an ever-increasing debt load dropped upon the working population. Mr. San Francisco, supplied some excellent statistics, which prove my thesis, concerning arbitrary, artificial mark-ups, that continually rise, over the last 40 years.Michel Something does not quite add up in this argument you present of steadily rising prices and falling costs of production. Another forum user here, Steve San Francisco, comes to your aid by presenting the following evidence: “According to economists Jan De Loecker of Princteon University and Jan Eeckhout of the University College London, this basically describes the US economy since 1980. In a recently released paper, De Loecker and Eeckhout analyzed the balance sheets of listed companies from 1950 to 2014. (In 2014, these firms accounted for around 40% of all sales.) They found that average markups, defined as the amount above cost at which a product is sold, have shot up since 1980. The average markup was 18% in 1980, but by 2014 it was nearly 70%." However such evidence hardly clinches the argument for the obvious reason provided in the quote itself – that the firms concerned account for only 40% of all sales. We do not know what the situation is regarding firms accounting for the other 60% of all sales. It is quite conceivable that the former have been able to substantially raise their prices because of the changing pattern of supply and demand but at the expense of the latter, perhaps because relatively greater productivity in the latter sector has greatly increased the output of goods there bringing about a fall in their relative prices. In fact, according to this article I came across, there are “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) So the picture you present is somewhat misleading – some businesses or industries may have been able make substantial mark-ups but only because other businesses of industries have not been able to do so. So what you have in fact is a shift in the overall pattern of demand from the latter to the former, relatively speaking.
Can anyone provide some data concerning the average mark up for industry as a whole not just a select number of businesses, as in the above quote, that account for only 40 per cent of total sales?
Gee, those are some pretty well funded researchers that came up with the 40% figure. I don't think any data that comprehensive and consolidated exists outside of deep capitalist HQ information vaults.
So essentially what this boils down to saying is that there is no hard emprical eviidence to back up the claim that businesses across the board can just arbitrarily mark up their prices in the face of (allegedly) falling production costs and this rather calls into question Michel's whole thesis that Marx's theory has been "marginalised" by the supposed ability of modern day businesses, using their "creative power" to enhance the value of commodities, in general, way above their abstract labour content. Some commodities may well sell above their value in the Marxian sense but the logical corrollary of this is that others sell below their value since the total sum of values must in the end equate with the total sum of prices
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:No. That's not what Marx or I meant in every case that we use the phrase "immense accumulation of commodities". I'm refering to a region of space like a store where an immense collection of things like toasters and blenders (aka commodities) are accumulated. You could define "an immense accumulation of commodities" with geography and a map in the lexicon of discusstion that's relevant and I'm using. Capitalist call that a store and it fits the definition of "an immense accumulation of commodities". Socialist call it a store and it fits the definition of "an immense accumulation of commodities".I feel like I am banging my head against a brick wall here. You clearly dont understand what a "commodity" is if you think a non market socialist system of production is one in which there will be "an immense accumulation of commodities". Everyone, apart from you, seems to understand that socialism in the Marxian senses entails the abolition of commodity production. Your eccentric interpretation is something that is unique to you alone, dont bring Marx into the picture. He would have guffawed heartily at such an example of profound ignorance on the subject Incidentally "toasters and blenders" are emphaticaly NOT "aka" commodities. They only become commoditiies when they are produced for the express purpose of being sold. This is so basic and elementray I have no idea why you can't seem to get your head around it
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:I think Robo203 can speak for himself. But I'll wager 1 hour of yout time reading on a topid the other chooses based on Robo203's sole determination of whom he feels owes whom an hour reading. for his service as judge Robo203's can also add an hour of time and any reading comprehension quizes to the wage and he gets to choose the topic the loser has to read. Care to put your means and abilitiy where your mouth is? If you're more than just an angry idiot then put up or shut up and let robo203 decide in his sole discretion and at his sole judgement criteria who he wants to spend an hour of time reading what. That would be the socialist way if you can see past your preconceptioins to recognize it and not get all scardy cat of an hours time lost having to think and answer a few simple reading comprehension questions. You accused me of caliming I know more than Karl Marx? So socialist defer to elites and prestigious figures to settle arguments? what difference does it make if I know more than Karl Marx except for offending your religous veneration of him which I don't think he would have wanted anyway. I want you to consider the phrase "I stand on the shoulders of genious" and consider what that might mean. I read a few marx books and summaries in college long ago and it had a profound effect on me, but clearly wasn't relevant or actionable so I didn't get much value from practicing it or talking about it most of the time. I have spent a lot of time studying human behavior in capitalist markets, usually on the inside doing some horibble job to survive making presentations for the very worst of capitalist because you got to pay the rent. Speaking of which I need a roommate now and I have one of the last rent controlled wharehouse bohemian room shares in SF that I'm renting at an incredibly low price because that's the law, and I completely approve of the law and my rent control and you have me all wrong because of your preconceptioins. Political Economic is just part of what I study and it was just part of what Marx studied. I have come after marx and my genious is added to his not in competition with his genious. Please don't apply the law of competition to me and marx because that's a capitalist way of thinking.Could you please stop wandering all over the place and address the argument in a simple straightforward fashion. I find your style f argumentation distracting and frustrating, frankly
robbo203 wrote:MBellemare wrote:I never said Marx's critique is no longer valid, I said it is marginalized, i.e., that capitalism functions according to a different, post-modern, post-industrial logic, that no longer holds scientific quantification of labor-power as first and foremost, but merely as a secondary minor consideration. What was in Marx's time an exception, i.e., the arbitrary construction of values, prices, and wages, where no labor-power is found, is now primary. That is all I've said. Marx readily admits that value and price can be dreamed-up and applied to thing. I merely state that now this sort of thing is primary to any quantifiable theory/law of value. By doing this, I can rightly explain from a post-industrial, post-modern point of view, why prices are rising as production costs drop, why there is ever-increasing financial inequality, why there is an ever-increasing debt load dropped upon the working population. Mr. San Francisco, supplied some excellent statistics, which prove my thesis, concerning arbitrary, artificial mark-ups, that continually rise, over the last 40 years.Michel Something does not quite add up in this argument you present of steadily rising prices and falling costs of production. Another forum user here, Steve San Francisco, comes to your aid by presenting the following evidence: “According to economists Jan De Loecker of Princteon University and Jan Eeckhout of the University College London, this basically describes the US economy since 1980. In a recently released paper, De Loecker and Eeckhout analyzed the balance sheets of listed companies from 1950 to 2014. (In 2014, these firms accounted for around 40% of all sales.) They found that average markups, defined as the amount above cost at which a product is sold, have shot up since 1980. The average markup was 18% in 1980, but by 2014 it was nearly 70%." However such evidence hardly clinches the argument for the obvious reason provided in the quote itself – that the firms concerned account for only 40% of all sales. We do not know what the situation is regarding firms accounting for the other 60% of all sales. It is quite conceivable that the former have been able to substantially raise their prices because of the changing pattern of supply and demand but at the expense of the latter, perhaps because relatively greater productivity in the latter sector has greatly increased the output of goods there bringing about a fall in their relative prices. In fact, according to this article I came across, there are “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) So the picture you present is somewhat misleading – some businesses or industries may have been able make substantial mark-ups but only because other businesses of industries have not been able to do so. So what you have in fact is a shift in the overall pattern of demand from the latter to the former, relatively speaking.
Can anyone provide some data concerning the average mark up for industry as a whole not just a select number of businesses, as in the above quote, that account for only 40 per cent of total sales?
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:robbo203 wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:. Capitalism in the form that you and marx understood has already ended.Really? The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,”1 its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.(Capital vol 1 ch 1) Has this ended?
When all you have is a single limited theory of socialism, then any “ immense accumulation of commodities,” looks like capitalism to be stamped out. I think the hypothetical general store is an "immense accumulation of commodities". So the theoretical socialist general store is capitalsm becuase inside of it is an immense (indead unlimited) accumulation of commodities, by your own logic.
What on earth are you talking about? I can make no sense of this response whatsoever. How is it the case that "by my own logic", socialism too will exhibit an "immense accumulation of commodities"? You apprently do not understand what a commodity is. It is not an object or good providing use value per se. Rather , it is good that is specifically produced for sale on a market. What characterises capitalism is that most goods are produced for same. i.e. there is generalised commodity production. In socialism there are no commodities whatsoever. There are goods providing use value, certainly, but these goods are not bought and sold. They are not commodities.That is because socialism is not a market exchange economy. Market exchange implies private or sectional ownersjip of the mean of wealth production but in socialism those means are owned in common, by everyone. If you own something you dont need to exchange something else for it in order to gain the right to access to the thing in question, That is why in socialism there will be no commodities and, therefore, "immense accumulation of commodities"
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:. Capitalism in the form that you and marx understood has already ended.Really? The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,”1 its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.(Capital vol 1 ch 1) Has this ended?
MBellemare wrote:I never said Marx's critique is no longer valid, I said it is marginalized, i.e., that capitalism functions according to a different, post-modern, post-industrial logic, that no longer holds scientific quantification of labor-power as first and foremost, but merely as a secondary minor consideration. What was in Marx's time an exception, i.e., the arbitrary construction of values, prices, and wages, where no labor-power is found, is now primary. That is all I've said. Marx readily admits that value and price can be dreamed-up and applied to thing. I merely state that now this sort of thing is primary to any quantifiable theory/law of value. By doing this, I can rightly explain from a post-industrial, post-modern point of view, why prices are rising as production costs drop, why there is ever-increasing financial inequality, why there is an ever-increasing debt load dropped upon the working population. Mr. San Francisco, supplied some excellent statistics, which prove my thesis, concerning arbitrary, artificial mark-ups, that continually rise, over the last 40 years.Michel Something does not quite add up in this argument you present of steadily rising prices and falling costs of production. Another forum user here, Steve San Francisco, comes to your aid by presenting the following evidence: “According to economists Jan De Loecker of Princteon University and Jan Eeckhout of the University College London, this basically describes the US economy since 1980. In a recently released paper, De Loecker and Eeckhout analyzed the balance sheets of listed companies from 1950 to 2014. (In 2014, these firms accounted for around 40% of all sales.) They found that average markups, defined as the amount above cost at which a product is sold, have shot up since 1980. The average markup was 18% in 1980, but by 2014 it was nearly 70%." However such evidence hardly clinches the argument for the obvious reason provided in the quote itself – that the firms concerned account for only 40% of all sales. We do not know what the situation is regarding firms accounting for the other 60% of all sales. It is quite conceivable that the former have been able to substantially raise their prices because of the changing pattern of supply and demand but at the expense of the latter, perhaps because relatively greater productivity in the latter sector has greatly increased the output of goods there bringing about a fall in their relative prices. In fact, according to this article I came across, there are “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) So the picture you present is somewhat misleading – some businesses or industries may have been able make substantial mark-ups but only because other businesses of industries have not been able to do so. So what you have in fact is a shift in the overall pattern of demand from the latter to the former, relatively speaking. You see, this is the problem that I have with your whole argument. You seem to think you can just arbitrarily or “creatively” push up your prices but the purchasing power of the consumer is not infinite and the law of opportunity costs intervenes to balance things out. If our consumer has to buy your product at a higher price then she is left with less money to spend on other things. It’s as simple as that. So if she has less money to spend on other thing the businesses producing those other things will struggle to sell these things at the same price as before. In short, they will be obliged to reduce their price to attract buyers Another thing. You talk about production costs falling in recent years and the prices of goods steadily rising. Let’s look at this more closely. Now production costs (by which I take you to mean UNIT production costs), have indeed fallen across large swathes of industry and this is largely because of rising productivity brought about by technological innovation. Marx refers to this as the cheapening of the prices of commodities. This is part of what makes for the increased standard of living. Because prices are cheaper, workers are more able to afford them or to stretch their money wages further to buy things they could not previously buy. In America for example there has been a significant increase in productivity in recent years. According to Gillian White: “When you look at the relationship between worker wages and worker productivity, there's a significant and, many believe, problematic, gap that has arisen in the past several decades. Though productivity (defined as the output of goods and services per hours worked) grew by about 74 percent between 1973 and 2013, compensation for workers grew at a much slower rate of only 9 percent during the same time period” (Gillian B White Feb 25, 2015, “Why the Gap Between Worker Pay and Productivity Is So Problematic”, The Atlantic) The point I am making here is that the costs of production which you say has been falling includes, of course, the wages bill that businesses have to cover. But wages have not fallen but grown albeit only slightly. Workers may be relatively poorer vis a vis the capitalists today but, in absolute terms, their living standards have gone up slightly. Why is this? Well, one reason is their increased productivity which translates into increased output which in turn brings about about a relative cheapening in the price of commodities. How else would you explain the slight increase in their real wages over this extended period? However, your whole argument hinges on the claim that prices have risen vis a vis real wages which would mean that the standard of living should have steadily fallen over this whole period. But that has not happened – in fact the reverse is true – which strongly suggests that there is something seriously wrong with your theory. You are not taking into account the increased output and the effect this has on prices What the gap between increased wages and increased productivity does help to explain is the increased level of inequality between the working class on the one hand and the capitalists on the other. But remove from the equation the factor of increased productivity (and hence increased output overall) then any increase in wages received by the workers would simply signify a decline in the share of the social product appropriated by the capitalists – and, of course, vice versa. Marx explains this in Value Price and Profit: “The aggregate demand for commodities would, therefore, not increase, but the constituent parts of that demand would change. The increasing demand on the one side would be counterbalanced by the decreasing demand on the other side”.Meaning that if capitalist increased their share of the social product this would tend to be reflected in an increased in price in the kind of commodities capitalists typically purchased such as luxuries but the flipside of this would be a lowered demand, and therefore a lower price, for “necessaries” – the sort of commodities that workers typically purchased Perhaps, it is the former type of good, or what I would call “status goods”, that your theory of rising prices versus falling production costs is based upon. We talked earlier of Naomi Klein’s book No Logo. But Klein herself makes a clear cut distinction between what she calls, on the one hand, “big box” outlets like Walmarts whose whole approach is selling as cheap as possible, buying in bulk and employing economies of scale and, on other, businesses like Nike who go in for branded products (though Nike itself , I believe, does not own any factories itself and outsources its production to subcontractors in the Third World). It is in the case of branded products such as Nike trainers that your argument is (half) correct. The Third world sweatshops that produce branded products like Nike trainers are notorious for the very low wages they pay their workers and there is a constant downward pressure to reduce wages even lower in a race to bottom with multinational corporations ever ready to switch to whichever supplier can come up with the lowest cost. But you are mistaken if you think that is the end of the matter and that everything over and above the low wholesale price charged by the subcontractors, reflecting its low production costs, is consumed by the businesses concerned as pure profit. What you overlook is that the production costs of the subcontractors supplying this branded goods and passed on to a corporation like Nike are not the only costs born by the latter. There is also the massive and increasing costs of marketing and branding the goods in question which is why these companies are so insistent on looking out for cheaper suppliers. They want to divert as much of their financial resources into marketing and branding their products and that too is a cost that eats away at their profits. The mark-up figures quoted above probably do not take into account these kinds of overheads but only direct production costs Finally you paint a generalised picture of steadily declining production costs and steadily rising commodity process and suggest that this has somehow marginalised Marx’s Labour theory of value. Well, no, it does not because all that that does on the face of it is suggest that the rate of surplus value – s/v – otherwise known as the rate of exploitation, has increased and to understand that you would be obliged to fall back on precisely that theory However, I would point that there is also the rate of profit to take into account (which is not the same thing as the rate of exploitation – namely, s(cc + v) – and there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that, if anything, there has been a long tendency for this rate to decline. See for example this article http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1126/rate-of-profit-continues-to-fall/. I don’t quite know how that would fit in with your suggestion that there is an ever growing volume of profit accruing resulting from the capitalists arbitrarily raising their prices using their “creative power”, notwithstanding the decline in production costs, but it would be interesting to see how you square this particular circle
theneilkirk wrote:Thank you.Dave, I did manage to speak with Rob and Mandy at the stall and am keen to meet up more.Robin, you really tested my Afrikaans there, but I managed without Google Translate! But I'll stick to English if you don't mind; I can't say 'ek kan die taal praat' any longer, I'm afraid to say. I was born in Vereeniging but moved to Germiston to start school and lived around that area for nearly 20 years. Small world… Where are you based now?Hi Neil, Im based in Southern Spain now – in the Alpujarras, south of Granada. Actually, some of the landscape around here reminds me of South Africa. Very rugged. You almost expect a troop of baboons to come over the top of the cliffs sometimes and maybe the odd leopard. Gawd, I remember Vereeniging and of course Germiston where I was born. We lived in Klippoortjie in Germiston not far from the lake and I recall there was a series of gruseome murders that took place around the lake back then – a serial killer or something. I guess you probably went to Germiston High, eh? Anyway have fun on the forum. Its good to have new faces and yes, as you say, what a small world it is! Cheers
theneilkirk wrote:Hi, As a new member of the forum, I wanted to introduce myself.My name is Neil, I’m 35 and I live and work around Canterbury. I’ve lived here 10 years and am originally from South Africa (I hold dual citizenship). In my day job, I am a Project Manager in software and technology development for a global telecommunications company. In my spare time, I enjoy running and have recently completed a Foundation Degree in Sports Science. I have applied and am hoping to become a member of the SPGB.Hoe gaan dit , Neil? Ek is ook van Suid-Afrika – van die stad Germiston – alhoewel dit baie jare is, was ek laas daar. Welkom by die forum. Robin
Marcos wrote:That conception of Alt-Left is just a stupidity, there is not a movement or an organization in the USA called Alt-Left, anything that opposes the Republican Party, or the right wingers, is called Alt-Lef, it is like the term Liberal that is being for all kind of situation, except for the real ones, there are not liberal in the USA, and Liberalism does not exist either. Most of the so called Alt-Left are just a bunch of reactionaries, recalcitrants, and similar to the right winger. Leninist which is the real leftists do not support the so called Alt-LettThere is a FB group called "Alt-Leftist Empire" which has over 10,000 members and calls itself a subset of liberals and leftists distinguishable from the "regressive left" – it is purportedly in favour of free speech ad opposed to Antifa and the Alt Right. I tried to join the site to exchange ideas but it didnt allow me in. My suspicions are that it is a front for Ancaps of various kinds
That is an interesting article, Alan. But Bookchin the Younger demonstrates, unfortunately, the same kind of black-or-white thinking that Bookchin the Elder exhibited. I'm thinking of these two paragraphs in particular: Municipalism rejects seizing state power, which we all know from the experiences of the twentieth century to be a hopeless pursuit, a dead end, because the state — whether capitalist or socialist — with its faceless bureaucracy is never truly responsive to the people. At the same time, activists must acknowledge that we won't achieve social change simply by taking our demands to the street. Large encampments and demonstrations may challenge the authority of the state, but they have not succeeded in usurping it. Those who engage only in a politics of protest or organizing on the margins of society must recognize that there will always be power — it does not simply dissolve. The question is in whose hands this power will reside: in the centralized authority of the state, or on the local level with the people.It is increasingly clear that we will never achieve the kind of fundamental social change we so desperately need simply by going to the ballot box. Social change won't occur by voting for the candidate who promises us a $15 minimum wage, free education, family leave or offers platitudes about social justice. When we confine ourselves to voting for the lesser of evils, to the bones that social democracy throws our way, we play into and support the very centralized state structure that is designed to keep us down forever. Why is it that so often on the Left, the Marxist argument for seizing the political instrument that we call the state, is just automatically and in knee jerk fashion, equated with a programme of reforms implemented by some "faceless bureaucracy"? This shows a lack of imagination or readiness to think laterally and project into a future state of affairs, if and when there is a very substantial socialist movement that has materialised out there (without, of course, which there can be no socialism). There is no necessary reason why the democratic capture of the state as a strategy should go down the road envisaged by Bookchin -providing it is made clear at the outset that this is not what it is being used for. I am very sympathetic to the idea of local intiatives along the lines Bookchin suggests but I am also aware that the fundamental social change we are arguing for absolutely requires large scale coordination backed up by large scale so-consciousness. It cannot happen peicemeal in the systemic sense we are talking about… This, to me, is the absolutely key advantage that the " parliamentary road to socialism" possesses which no other strategy seems to possses – namely its symbolic coordinating function that concentrates the wishes of a majority in a form that enables the switchover from a capitalist to a socialist mode of production to happen – and in a manner that effectively de-legitimises the moral authority of capitalism to continue (thus reducing the prospect of destabilising violence which is not in our interests). How else do you coordinate the changeover from private ownership to common ownership of the means of production? This is what the opponents of the parliamentary apporach never ever explain. It is a huge lacuna in their argument; a fatal flaw, in my opinion Perhaps it might be worth contacting Debbie Bookchin to engage her in an exchange of ideas on precsely this point
MBellemare wrote:Hence a new elaborated analysis is required. Thus, a term like "creative-power" which encompasses both quantifiable labor-power and unquantifiable labor-power.Now, the working class is the most numerous, and thus its creatice-power is the bulk of creative-power expenditures. Who else could support a football team, with outlandish prices and wages, certainly not the few capitalists who organize a stadium and/or the premier league. Workers, who are the bulk of creative-power, expend their creative-power, in believing in football or hockey and consuming football and hockey.Michel, you have me confused now about this concept of yours of "creative power". I was thinking of the ability to attract huge price increases for products well above their cost of production – in contrast to the Marx's "cheapening of commodities" brought about by technological innovation and enhanced productivity. Branding as a form of advertising is a good example of this because it invests the commodity in question with layers of signfiicance and emotional associations. As I suggested earlier, you are lulled into thinking that buying a pair of Nike shoes is like buying into a way of life Now you are saying creative power is really just an attribute or extension of labour power and as such resides substantially in the working class itself – in its ability to imagine. I dont quite get this. You say workers expend their creative power supporting their football or hockey team and paying through the nose for the privilege of doing so. But does this connect with the idea of raising prices way above the cost of production.? I had thought the expenditure off creative power was something that benefited those who did the expending.- like the football stars you mention. Now you seem to be saying the opposite – that the workers in whom this creative power substantially resides are the victims of their own ability to exercise creative power even to the extent of leaving themselves without enough money to put food on the table or gas in their cars as I think you mentioned earlier. They are the ones who have to pay the high price of supporting their football or hockey team Could you possibily clarify this?
