robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sympo wrote:ALB wrote:
"How could it since 10 small potatoes can't weigh the same as 10 large ones, can they?"I think what I am trying to ask is "does a potato that weighs 1.5 gram have the same value as a potato that weighs 1 gram?"If the answer is "yes", how is the value of potatoes relevant at all to its price, seeing as the price of potatoes differ depending on the weight of them? As I see it right now, all potatoes take the same amount of labour time to socially produce."Incidentally, to complicate things, commodities do not generally exchange at their labour-time values but tend to sell at what Marx called their "price of production" which is the monetary cost of producing them + a markup for the average rate of profit."Yes, I believe you mentioned this in my thread "A few questions regarding economics". I should read up on that.
I think the point is, Sympo, that value is a social average so it doesnt really matter in the end that a 1.5 gram potato and a 1 gram potato have a different price despite having – supposedly – the same embodied labour content. It is only in the long run and in the aggregate that prices correspond to values to the extent that supply and demand work to cancel each other as an influence on the price of potatoes. But even that is not the whole picture given the tendency for the rate of proft to equalise across different branches of industry despite differences in the organic composition of capital between them That is another factor that works to ensure that the price of a commodity will tend to diverge from its value
gnome wrote:ALB wrote:West London branch, in conjunction with comrades living there and elsewhere in Surrey, is standing a candidate in Guildford in the county council elections in Surrey where in the 1980s there was a very active Party branch. Although Surrey was part of the South East Region for the 2014 Euroelections, it was the only country where we didn't arrange for Royal Mail to distribute our election manifesto, which is one reason why we will be using the wording of that manifesto. But we'll have to distribute it ourselves since there is no free postal distribution in local elections.This is the leaflet we'll be distributing in Guildford.
Good leaflet – snappy short with just enough information to make one want to read more. I would be interested to know what sort of response this leaflet elicits And if you come across anyone who might remember Guildford Branch back in the 1980s….
alanjjohnstone wrote:If elected and when it comes to elections, it may well be our best chance at the present time, would we be drawn into the swamp of reformism…and perhaps the most mundane of them — where to put park benches and litter bins but maybe other responsibilities that we might highlight more the socialist future link – local allotments and playing fields…the sharing of the commonsWould this really amount to reformism though? Not that I am suggesting a socialist party should stand on any other ticket than establishing a socialist society. But reformism to me signifies an attempt to modify the workings or behaviour of capitalism as a socio economic system. It is more to do with the economic policies of the central state than where to locate a litter bin in your local Parish. I dont think it is being "reformist" to suggest that the bin might be better placed outside the local comprehensive school so the kids having an illicit ciggie can drop their butts in it
Something here on the role of the "White Helmets" – by the sound if it, a sort of Al Queda/ISIS amateur dramatic society much adored by some in the Western media for their compelling performances http://theduran.com/warning-disturbing-images-white-helmets-busted-killing-babies-in-pr-stunt-to-start-war-in-syria/
imposs1904 wrote:Excellent article by Robert Barltrop from 1971:Link The Permissive SocietyYes that is indeed an excellent article, The point that Barltrop makes about eras being defined by the perceptions of the ruling class (or as Marx would have itm the ruling ideas are those of the ruling class) is true enough but, as he also suggests, it is not uninfluenced by the experiences of the working class. For instance, in the wake of the Great Depression there was a tendency to tone down displays of conspicuous consumption because it was seen to be somewhat provocative and unseemly in the face of mass hardship. Its a two-way process of adjustment this ever shifting relationship between the capitalists and the workers
alanjjohnstone wrote:.As i touched on earlier, we cannot ignore that it is North Korea that is the real target. A gesture that cannot be retaliated by Syria but if directed upon Korea, i think they would seek revenge.It looks like the Chinese are now preparing themselves for a US attack on North Koreahttp://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/china-moves-150000-troops-and-medical-supplies-to-north-korean-border-in-case-us-attacks-kim-jong-un-regime/ar-BBzFB5g?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp If such an attack came I wonder what pretext would be manufactured by Trump and his merry band of war crimminals. Firing a few dud missiles into the sea, though "provocative", is probably not enough to constitute a casus belli and as for human rights violations, well, considering the US is in bed with some of the very worst human rights violaters – Saudi Arabia for example – that is gonna be a tricky one to pull off in the eyes of increasingly skeptical public Capitalist politics is just a very bad form of theatre.
ALB wrote:The more I think about it, and I'm not normally into conspiracy theories, the more I think that there is something odd about that chemical attack. It had no advantage for the Syrian government, which was just about to be rehabiltated, and every advantage for those states that want "regime change" there, i.e the installation of a pro-West regime. My betting would be that the Turkish intelligence services would have been more likely to have staged it than the Syrian government.Yes Im inclined to agree. The Russans, for one, would be hopping mad if it as discovered that regime was in fact responsible. I think a lot of people are skeptical. I posted something this morning in response to the MSN article mentioned in above (post 38) in the commentary section and was gobsmacked this evening when I came back from work to find that it had got 83 likes, Hopefully its a sign of the times – that people are not going to be so easily conned by the warmongers
The warmongering scum on all sides are at it again – ratcheting up the stakes and increasing the odds in this war of words that could all too easily become a war of horrendously deadly weaponry, if they are not careful, that could wipe out most, it not all, of humanity. Developments can take on a momementum of their own once we cross the line when all rationality breaks down and the irrationality of the war machine takes over http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/syria-crisis-russia-raises-prospect-of-war-if-it-is-given-g7-ultimatum-as-it-mocks-boris-johnsons-no-show/ar-BBzCkUy?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhpThese irresponsible idiots need to understand once and for all that this world is not theirs to play with in this cynical and desparately dangerous game of one-upmanship and macho posturing
mcolome1 wrote:Others sources like Forbes and the Economists have indicated that in 2018 the Chinese economy will overtake US. The IMF is referring to the size of the Chinese economy, but others sources have also indicated that it is going to be larger in size, in investment and in millitary power, and spheres of influences. China already made an offer to Meixco in case that Nafta failsNot too sure about military power though. China has a long long way to go before it will catch up with the US in military spending. The US Military spending is about 2 1/2 times the size of China's and as a percentage of GDP its also greater.Here is an interesting list of the top miitary spenders, The surprise for me was Saudi Arabia which even beats Russia into third place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
John Pozzi wrote:.Rear money, i.e., GRB ecos, signify the universal value of the product of nature, i.e., the generation of biomass in an ecosystem, usually expressed in units of mass per unit surface (or volume) per unit time, for instance, grams per square metre per day (g m−2 d−1). The mass unit may relate to dry matter or to the mass of carbon generated. Productivity of autotrophs such as plants is called primary natural productivity, while that of heterotrophs such as animals is called secondary productivity.Secondary production is the generation of biomass of heterotrophic (consumer) organisms in a system. This is driven by the transfer of organic material between trophic levels, and represents the quantity of new tissue created through the use of assimilated food that everyone consumes.Oh dear. What on earth are you on about? This has got nothing to do with money. Money is a social institution grounded in an exchange or private property-based economy, The transfer of organic materials between trophic levels is not some kind of quid pro quo property transaction. I know there is a tendency to resort to metaphors when talking about nature or natural processes but the lion is not really the "king of the animal world". You do know that dont you?
John Pozzi wrote:.Real money values the product of nature, i.e. natural resources, the basis of our economy.John Pozzi, your comments are becoming more and more bizarre and surreal. Do you know what money is and what it signifies? How is it a product of nature? Natural resources are not money, for heavens sake, though they can be bought and sold for money and that only relatively recently in human history
mcolome1 wrote:Probably, the USA goverment spent 95 millions dollars to impress the Chinese president with their millitary forces, but It did not work out too well either, and in the meeting it looks like China was in a stronger position, they have something that is as strong as millitary hardware, which is capital, China is going to increase their capital investment in the USA which is over 51 billions. The USA does not want to recognize that within a few years China is going to become the number one world economic power.According to the IMF China is already the number one world economic power. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30483762 At any rate, it looks like the 21st century is going to be the Chinese century just as the 20th century was the American century – that is if we dont achieve world socialism first.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:There are arguments in favour of meat production, apart obviously from the delicious pork pies, bacon, sausages and hamburgers we get from it..Yes there are some environmental grounds that support this conclusion – quite apart from the obvious one that some environments such as mountainous terrains or arid regions are not suitable in many cases for arable farming and that by focussing on livestock here you are making use of an ecological niche that would be otherwise unavailable for increasing food output. But there are also other direct benefits that are sometimes overlooked . For example, properly managed pastoralism, partiularly in what are called "brittle environments" like the Meditteranean where there is little or no summer rainfall causing the vegetation to dry up, can play an important role in reducng the risk of devastatiing wildfires. As you will know from the news, wildfires are becoming increasingly significant in many parts of the world. There is also empirical evidence that grazing can have direct benefits for the resilence of ecosystems and for biomass production (see some of the stuff written by a guy called Andrew Warren who did a comparative study of th Sinai/Negev deserts and Israeli versus Bedouin patterns of land use).I am less convinced when it comes to so called factory farming however which is not only often intolerably cruel but also has adverse environmental and nutritional side effects. As with arable farming, I believe this too will have to be radically changed in a socialist society
Just to reinforce the point made earlier about the need to fundamentally change the way we go about producing food in a socialist society, there is this to consider – current industrialised methods of farming are causing an alarming loss of topsoil. Listen to this short youtube clip by George Monbiothttps://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=65usnzkhiR0&app=desktop Also, read thishttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/dec/14/soil-erosion-environment-review-vidalhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/https://phys.org/news/2015-12-soil-lossan-unfolding-global-disaster.htmlhttp://www.globalagriculture.org/report-topics/soil-fertility-and-erosion.html This is all bad news for the future of humanity and makes the need for a different kind of society all the more pressing. Literally, we face the stark choice – socialism or barbarism
alanjjohnstone wrote:Robbo, the WSM should be resting on its laurels, gloating over the fact that once again we have been proven right and should be rubbing it in with we told you so staementsNot much self-satisfied smugness since being right cost many innocent lives…Agreed Alan. Have you seen this BTW which seems to rule out the possibility that it was a stash of chemicals weapons that was bombedhttp://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/06/on-that-gas-attack-we-dont-need-conspiracies-to-oppose-us-war-in-syria/
