[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

I think the belief that they do is implicit in "Okishio's theorem" – the argument that investing in more machinery must raise profitability otherwise the capitalists wouldnt make such an investment from which it is inferred that machines must ipso facto produce surplus value.

As I suspected, it seems that there is a confusion between the creation of (value and) surplus value and its realisation. Due to the averaging of the rate of profit, capitalist enterprises with relatively more fixed capital tend to capture more surplus value (from the pool of surplus value created by the working class as a whole) than is created in them — otherwise there'd be no incentive to invest in more up-to-date and productive machinery. But it is not the machinery itself that creates the surplus value.

 Wasnt Marx's argument that the innovating capitalist would attract higher than normal profits to  begin  with but as others followed the rate of prpfit would tend to decline with the overall rise in the organic composition of capital? I understand the point you are making about more capital intensive businesses capturing more surplus value as a result of the averaging of the rate of proft but I suppose Keen would say he is not talking about this but rather about the more fundamental point of whether machines produce value and therefore surplus value .  He would probably say that even with relatively labour intensive businesses, machines still add value to the product  as opposed to simply transfer the value congealed in them over the lifetime of the machine. Intuitively I think this argument doesnt make sense but I am trying to marshall the array of different arguments that can be used against it

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

ALB wrote:

What is Steve Keen's objection? Has it something to do with the averaging of the rate of profit meaning that constant capital "attracts" more profit than the value its transfers?

 No, I dont think so.  That was Bohm Bawerks line of argument  – wasn't it? –  were he talked of the fatal "contraction" between vol 1 and vol 3 of Das Capital which I think was dealt with by Hilferding and Bukharin. 

 Slight  correction.  He does appear to have gone along with the conventional argument against Marx's views respect to the so called transformation problem"- now put to rest by the good folk from TSSI camp like Kliman and Freeman – but it was not his primary line of attack on Marx. That as I said seems to focus on the question of whether machine produce surplus valueI think the belief that they do is implicit in "Okishio's theorem" – the argument that investing in more machinery must raise profitability otherwise the capitalists wouldnt make such an investment from which it is inferred that machines must ipso facto produce surplus value. 

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

What is Steve Keen's objection? Has it something to do with the averaging of the rate of profit meaning that constant capital "attracts" more profit than the value its transfers?

 No, I dont think so.  That was Bohm Bawerks line of argument  – wasn't it? –  were he talked of the fatal "contraction" between vol 1 and vol 3 of Das Capital which I think was dealt with by Hilferding and Bukharin. Keens particular gripe with the LTV  centres on something else which is nicely explained in this link I came across Keen decidedly joins the latter, contending that Marx’s labor theory of value is invalid, because of an inconsistency that, he believes, vitiates Marx’s argument on how surplus value is produced. The inconsistency–Keen thinks–lies in the “asymmetrical” manner in which Marx dealt with labor and non-labor inputs in surplus value production. https://juliohuato.org/2012/04/06/steve-keen-and-the-labor-theory-of-value/

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

I was once at a debate between Wedgewood Benn and the Green Party at which he made the point that revolutions are inspired by hope of a better future rather than by fear of worse one (predictably, the Green Party representative was speaking doom and gloom and predicting the end of the world in 40 years, etc, etc). I think Benn had a valid point. In fact fear can lead people to support reaction rather than revolution.

  That is very true and is also a very important point to make as well. There is a persistent strand of thinking that argues that things need to get worse before they can get better.  You hear this kind of argument quite frequently on the Left – those social engineers with their mechanical-cum-teleological view of history.  Capitalist crises and collapse brought on by the falling rate of profit, or whatever, is the only way we can move forward.  It is the only way, they say, we can shake off the lethargy and compliance of the workers that bind them to the system. We have to go through the purgatory of a deep recession and grinding poverty in order to arrive at the pearly gates of a communist heaven. I’m very sceptical about this kind of argument.  There is a lot of evidence around in the form of social surveys and what not that suggest workers tend, if anything, to become more conservative and unwilling to rock the boat when things are getting bad. Marx noted how the lumpenproletariat, those unfortunate workers at the bottom of the economic pile and suffering the greatest hardship, were often a force for reaction.  Hitler came to power on the back of the 1930s Depression and the populist desire for a strong leader.  You could say the same of Trump although Trump is not really a Hitler figure.  In fact, much of right wing shift in politics in recent decades seems to be linked to economic problems.  Go back to the watershed decade of the 1970s when the long post war boom came to an end and ushered in the neoliberal order commencing with Reagan and Thatcher.   Sure, this is a simplification and one can point to counter evidence.  The 1919 Spartacist uprising, the Anarchist collectives during the Spanish civil war (some of which sent so far as to abolish money and even – briefly – economic exchange itself) and so on, were all born out of harsh circumstances.  Nevertheless I think on balance the evidence shows that when things get worse or, at any rate, when there is an expectation that things will get worse, people tend to draw in their horns.  Conversely, when things get better, or seem to be getting better, people get more radical and trade unions, for instance become more militant in their demands precisely because they have a stronger bargaining position to work from All this has lessons for us socialists and the style and content of our propaganda.  It suggests we need to be focussing on the more positive developments taking place around us and encourage workers to engage in a process of imaginative extrapolation to reflect on what is technically possible rather than depress them with thoughts of imminent apocalyptic collapse.   That’s why I quite like memes such as “Fully Automated Luxury Communism”.  Its forward thinking and positive.  Yes the concept can be criticised (see for example https://libcom.org/blog/fully-automated-luxury-communism-utopian-critique-14062015) but at least it focusses on a brighter future and in so doing sheds lights on what gets in the way of us creating such a future

[robbo203]

Bob Andrews wrote:

Unlike Vin 'Mr Sincerity' Maratty, I'm not glad to see you back. You seem to do little else than bang the drum for Anarchists ( who are all policemen). 

Ignore the ever strange Mr Andrews and welcome back.  Your contributions are always appreciated

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

Going off at a slight tangent, as a regular viewer of RT I have a strong suspicion that it has a hidden agenda of courting populism and giving sympathetic coverage to populist issues like immigration precisely becuase the interests of Russian state lies with a divided Europe

Also having been a regular viewer during my absence from the internet, i can agree with Robbo here. RT has been guilty of highlighting the refugee crisis as a social problem and reporting on the crimes of refugees in their host countries.Has anybody got figures on the numbers of Syrian refugees Russia has admitted, even if only temporaily by offering advance medical treatment in their hospitals for the casualities of the civil war? As one of the major perpetrators of the conflict, Russia has failed to provide adequate humanitarian help to the victims while blaming Merkel for welcoming asylum-seekers.RT has been shamelessly pro-Trump, denouncing the protests against him such as the Women's march as a George Soros conspiracy and the Berkley University demonstrations as criminal anarchy. As you say, in the world of geo-politics a divided EU and US is in the interests of Russia's national interest and Putin's personal interest (are they the same thing?) It regularly invites UKIP policians on to their shows as commentators as well as American right-wingers from Ron Paul Institute. I should add they also make use of the SWP's Chris Banbury and Scot Nat John Wight.

 All true Alan, And the guy who hosts the Crosstalk show declared himself to be frankly conservative.  Somehow RT has pulled off the trick of appearng liberal in some ways while courting deeply reactionary sentiments in other ways, It is a tool of the Russian state and its reactionary oligarch leader, Putin, who is a good example of a Right wing populist . I  see Putin has just signed off some bill decriminalising domestic violence.  So macho violence  is OK then.  Like macho displays of military strength it all helps to cement the image of a strong leader  which is what populism tends to cultivate.  We are living in deeply reactionary times

[robbo203]

cyberrevolution1 wrote:

. Could the socialists use the populists to weaken the power of the elites so a global revolution could occur? The populists divide the global borguises, so we can conquer them. 

 Going off at a slight tangent, as a regular viewer of RT I have a strong suspicion that it has a hidden agenda of courting populism and giving sympathetic coverage to populist issues like immigration precisely becuase the interests of Russian state lies with a divided Europe. Its the same with Trump with  whom its sympathies clearly lay in the presidential contest

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo, you're moving outside the bounds of rational debate, and entering the territory of meaningless denunciation.It's impossible, by any rational political measures, to argue that a 'democrat' is a 'Stalinist'. 

 Sigh.  You never listen to what other people re saying do you LBird? I said the logic of your argument is Stalinist even if you yourself claim to be a democrat. This is because you are committed to the idea that there can be only one single  planning body in communist society irrespective of how its is meant to be controlled – democratically or otherwise. In practice, there is only one way in which you can run a centrally planned economy in this sense and that is undemocratically with decisions being imposed downwards on the populaton I know you dont like the idea but that is in effect what you are advocating.  Get used to it or radically change your ideas!

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Well, robbo, if your considered reply to my argument for 'democratic control' is that I really mean 'central control', that just shows that you're determined to replace my answer with one that you want to read.The only way to equate the two, is to assume that any 'control' that is not 'individual control' is by definition 'central control'.I suspect that it's your ideology that allows you to do this – that is, the equating of 'democratic' and 'central' is a political and ideological position, that you have adopted.All I can say again, to any workers who are asking about my political arguments, is that they're based upon a political and ideological assumption of 'democratic control'. As were Marx's.

 Nope LBird  you can't wriggle out of this ….In response to my pointIf you dont accept society wide central planning then it logically follows that you too accept that there are certain structural limits to the scope of democratic decisionmaking in communismYou saidNo, I don't agree. Meaning you dont accept there should be any structural limits on democratic control = meaning for example that you cannot entertain the idea of any kind of decentralised decision making which is precisely an example of such a limit You continue not to understand the point i am making.  I am not – repeat not – equating democratic conrol with central control in the sense of control exercised by a centralised  elite.   The vital  point which you have completely missed,  quite likely wifully,  is that there is ONLY ONE SINGLE  PLANNING BODY in this scenario , irrespective of how it is "controlled".  In theory that body could be democratically cntroled by the entire world populatuon or it could be undemocratcaly controlled by a small subset – the centralised  techical elite,  In practice, since democratic control by the entire global population over the total pattetn of production is an impossibility, what you advocating BY VIRTUE OF YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE IDEA THERE SHOULD BE ONLY ONE SINGLE PLANNING BODY IN COMMUNIST SOCIETY (no structural limits , remember)  is that all decisions should be made this tiny undemocraric elite You may not like this idea but that is the logic of what you are arguing for.  You are a Stalinist in denial about the stalinist logic of your own viewpoinrt

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

OK so finally finally finally weve got something to sink our teeth into.  If you dont accept society wide central planning then it logically follows that you too accept that there are certain structural limits to the scope of democratic decisionmaking in communism.Before we move on can you say whether you agree with what I have just said?

No, I don't agree.You're equating 'central' (and you mean 'Stalinist', elite, undemocratic, etc.) with 'democratic'. This is a political move on your part, not mere 'misunderstanding'.This then allows you to contrast 'central' (ie. 'democratic') with 'individualist'.As I've said before, your real concern is 'individuals', and not 'social production'.My key political concern is 'democratic social production'.

  Well, this shows pretty much conclusively  that you have no idea what you are talking about – what the issue is that is at stake If you dont accept that are certain structural limits on the scope of decisonmaking in a communist society then it follows logically that you believe that every decision that need to be made with respect to planning production in a communist society  needs to be democratically done by the entire global population,  That is literally what you  mean by suggesting that that there are no structural limits on democratic decisionmaking  – what else could it mean? Also, its got nothing to do whether this central planning model you support  is Stalinist or Democratic.  In theory, you could put forward a democratc model of society wide central planning.  In theory, you could say that 7 billion should be allowed to participate in each and every one of  the  millions of decisions affecting the allocation of resources that happen every single day and to not allow this to happen is to place structural limits on democratic decisonmaking, The point is that there is just ONE single decsionmaking body – the global population of 7 billion in this case  – and THIS is what defines this model as a model of classic central planning.  Its got NOTHING to do with the fact that the decisions  are made democraticalLy or by a stalinist elite.  Its got EVERYTHING to dow ith the fact that there are no other planning bodies in existence except this one.  That is why it is called society wide central planning In practice though there is absolutely no way in which 7 billion people are going to be able to participate in voting on millions of planning decisions that need to be made every single day.  Even you are not that stupid as to suggest such a thing,  So ipso facto these decisions are going to have to be imposed on th great majority by  technocratic elite wthout debate or discussion .  That elite will decide what will be produced and hence will determine how it gets to be produced.  To meet the targets set by the elite the great majority will be obliged to conform to a work schedule likewise set by that elite,  Their work contribution will not be freeely chosen by themselves and their consumption needs will be strictly rationed in conformity with the Plan This is conclusive prooof  that by default, whether you know it or not, LBird, your endorsement of central planning makes your position an essentially Stalinist one nothwithstanding your blather about democracy.  But then I suspected that a long time ago…

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 Further, I answer questions, but the 'materialists' don't like those answers (and can't argue against them),

 So answer the question: If you dont accept society wide central planning then it logically follows that you too accept that there are certain structural limits to the scope of democratic decisionmaking in communism.  Before we move on can you say whether you agree with what I have just said?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

OK let me put it this way since you obviously are intent on evading  the straightforward question about central planning as per usual…Im all ears LBird

I've never argued for 'central planning', so your 'ears' must be making it all up for you.No doubt, you'll claim that your 'materialist ears' talk to your 'idealist mind', and you always passively follow 'the material', so anything I write will be ignored, 'as per usual'.

 OK so finally finally finally weve got something to sink our teeth into.  If you dont accept society wide central planning then it logically follows that you too accept that there are certain structural limits to the scope of democratic decisionmaking in communism. Before we move on can you say whether you agree with what I have just said?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

I'm afraid, Vin, that any thread he joins turns to bird shit, This one is now polluted.

You really don't like being challenged, do you, ALB?You can't reason and argue, so you abuse.You'd be dangerous, if you were in any position of political power.And you pass yourself off as an intellectual of the SPGB?Dear me! Talk about scraping the barrel! The SPGB must be very desperate.

 But its true what ALB says though isnt it LBird? You derail each and every discussion you get embroiled in with this single minded narrow obsessive mantra of yours and people do get understandably sick and tired of it.   Cant you see that? You are your own worst enemy in that respect and it doesnt help that you persistently refuse to answer questions put to you  – like the one I just put to you whether or not you support the concept of society-wide central planning.  It is an easy thing to just say no if you dont support it – so why dont you? This is why there is never any progress with you. You are constantly arguing in bad faith , not engaging in a genuine democratic debate

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

blah blah etc etc

So do you support society-wide central planning then LBird as in everyone getting to vote on the totality of production?  Yes or no?

This response proves, once again, that 'materialists' simply cannot conduct a reasoned debate, but must always fall into abuse, because they always get politically cornered, when 'democratic production' is mentioned.Further, the 'materialists' never read what I write, and make up their own version of 'what I say', and then pass that around amongst themselves, and convince themselves that that lie is 'what I wrote'.robbo is arguing against a bogeyman of his own making.If he isn't aware of his own individualist (and elitist) politics, surely someone else here is?And will join in to defend Marx's vision of a self-emancipatory, conscious, democratic, socialism.

 OK let me put it this way since you obviously are intent on evading  the straightforward question about central planning as per usual – do you believe in the self emancipatory  (your words) communist principle that individual themselves should freely determine what their contribution to society should be and do you  believe in that other self emancipatory  communist principle that individuals themselves should have free access to goods and services on the basis of self determined need? Oh and in answer to your previous comment –  yes of course I believe a communist society will be a democratic one but I also believe that there are certain limits to democratic decisionmaking and that if you exceed those limits you erode the very basis of communist life itself,  There needs to be a balance struck between democracy and the kind of self emancipatory autonomy and freedom that a genuine communist society offers.  Communism without freedom is not communism at all.  It becomes the self inflicted dictatorship of the barracks.  That is why I uphold the abovementioned communist principles.  Do you? Fimally if you refuse to be drawn on the question of central plannng could you perhaps at least  explain how you envisage planning to occur in a communist society.  For example will there be a degree of decentralisation in your version of communusm – that is to say many planning bodoes as opposed to just one?  Im all ears LBird

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

blah blah etc etc

 So do you support society-wide central planning then LBird as in everyone getting to vote on the totality of production?  Yes or no?

[Author]

Posts