[Sympo]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

The key thing to remember is the 'socially necessary' bit, if an object cannot be exchanged it has no value and is not a commodity.  It doesn't matter how many hours you spend making it.

Yes I understand, but that's not what I'm trying to get an answer for. What I am after are your thoughs on this reasoning:1. Labour time must determine value somehow. No other theory makes sense. For example, marginal utility is extremely flawed. We cannot determine which use-value that's "better" than the other, because use-value is subjective, and can therefore not explain why commodities exchange at stable ratios.2. Claiming that two identical apples have different values because one apple took longer than the other to produce makes no sense.3. But remember, labour time must determine value somehow.4. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that SNLT determines value. It doesn't matter how or if the SNLT of a commodity can be calculated or established. There is no other explanation that we can think of.

[Sympo]

robbo203 wrote:

I am not quite sure what you mean when you say "Therefore SNLT must be something that exists".

Hmm, how should I explain…Okay, here's an attempt:We accept that labour must be the source of value. The more labour it takes to make a commodity, the larger the value the commodity has.If we don't believe that it's SNLT that determines the value of, say, toasters, we would have no other choice but to agree with this claim:"Mr A, mr B, mr C, mr D and mr E all makes toasters of equal quality. Mr A, B, C and D makes a toaster each in 4 hours. Mr E is really slow and makes a toaster in 40 hours. The toaster of mr E represents a greater value than the toaster of mr A, because it took him more labour time to make it."If we believe that this claim is correct, we have to believe thatthe value of 40 toasters = the value of 1 toasterwhich doesn't make any sense mathematically.But we cannot claim that the source of value isn't labour, because labour is the only thing that can explaina) what determines price when demand and supply are in harmony (note that I'm not saying that value equals price)andb) why commodities exchange at stable ratiosThis leads us to believing that my individual labour time can't determine the value of the commodity that I'm producing. The idea that it's something social makes more sense.Am I being clearer on what I mean?

[Sympo]

robbo203 wrote:

Personally I think the former definition of SNLT is more acceptable. 

I personally have a hard time choosing between the two But what are your thoughts on my reasoning?Summary of my reasoning:Labour must be the source of all value (I'll skip going through the reasons as every SPGB member/sympathizer in the thread knows the reasoning behind the statement).But if you make an apple, and I make an apple, and the labour time for them are different, they still have the same value.Therefore SNLT must be something that exists, because it's the only thing that can explain how two individual commodities, that are identical in everything except the individual labour time put into each of them, have the same value. Am I committing a logical fallacy? If so, which one? (Genuine question)

[Sympo]

ALB wrote:

No.

So where does the idea of SNLT come from? The value of a commodity must be determined by the labour contained in it. There are two alternative views that one can hold (as far as I know): either thata) it is the individual labour time of a commodity that determines the value of said commodity.For example, if it took two hours for Arnold to pick an apple from a tree, the value of Arnolds apples would be two value units per apple. But if it took Beatrice ten thousand hours to pick an apple from a tree, then the value of Beatrices apples would be ten thousand value units per apple.or thatb) it is the "socially necessary" labour time of the apples (that have been sold) that determines the value of all apples.How one defines what "socially necessary labour time" is more or less irrelevant, because we've already accepted that the value of a commodity is determined by the labour contained in it.Alternative A is unreasonable, and as there is no other alternative than B left (and I can't think of any other option), B must be the right answer.

[Sympo]

ALB wrote:

Actually, as the Socially Necessary Labour Time theory of value is one variety of the Labour Theory of Value, it's more the other way round: if the SNLT is true, then the LTV must be as well. 

Does that mean that it's the idea of SNLT that convinces you that the LTV is correct?Why are you a proponent of the idea of SNLT? What makes it a reasonable concept?

[Sympo]

Do marxists accept the idea of SNLT because they accept the LTV as the only possible explanation for value?Does the reasoning go:"If the LTV is true, then SNLT must be true aswell. And seeing as the LTV is the only reasonable explanation for value, the concept of SNLT must be true"

[Sympo]

"But underdevelopment will surely persist if the existing capitalist relations of production are maintained, and if the dependence of Africa on international capital continues. Therefore, the overturning of the existing relations of production is necessary for overcoming underdevelopment. Socialism is inevitable if development is desirable."What does "undevelopment" in this context mean?Doesn't the SPGB often talk about how Tsarist Russia was (among other things) too underdeveloped for Socialism?How can Socialism be established if Capitalism isn't well developed in large parts of Africa?I'm having a discussion with a non-socialist and I would be interested in hearing other peoples opinions, apologies if the questions are a bit odd

[Sympo]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Not an expert in body language, Sympo, and you might be right but it could be as easily seen as Lenin hiding his face in shame and guilt.

Sure but that is not how most people intepret the memeIf you google "Picard facepalm" you will see the original meme before it got "leninized"Sorry for making such a big deal out of this but if that picture is posted people are going to tweet "#theleftcantmeme"

[Sympo]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

alanjjohnstone, I must say that this picture is a bit weird to use because this pic of Lenin facepalming is used by leninists when people say things that they find dumb. For example if I were to write "Lenin was in favor of State Capitalism", they could post this image in order to make fun of what I've written.Sorry for being a member of the meme policeThere are several pictures of Lenin that might be better to use. For example here are some photos of him that I think are in the public domain: Category:Portrait photographs of Vladimir Lenin – Wikimedia Commons

[Sympo]

This is somewhat off-topic but I personally think it might be a good idea for the SPGB Twitter account to upload pictures of Lenin with his quotes about State Capitalism (with sources of course).I don't think a lot of leninists have read those quotes and it might make them rethink their views a bit

[Sympo]

robbo203 wrote:

Thank you so much for answering Robbo "At the end of the day  I dont see this as being a problem at all.  As I keep on pointing out – even today under capitalism most work is unpaid and falls completely outside of the monetised sector.  "He said that useful work (i.e. the stuff people do at their jobs) can never be as enjoyable as doing any other activity because of an inherent sense of obligation to do the work and the time required to do it. This, he claims, would lead to people always preferring to play tennis and write poetry instead of doing real work, which means society collapses. "Surely these same people who established socialism will understand that if everyone  adopted the perspective of the lazy freerider then nothing will get produced"He would reply by saying that society consists of individuals, and that it makes sense to not work if your personal input doesn't affect much.I.e. he's arguing that the inherent selfishness of individuals (which the SPGB doesn't claim will have to go away before Socialism can be possible) is in conflict with what's good for a socialist society.

[Sympo]

From the Reddit comment:"The studies listed below help illustrate the manner in which the brain is susceptible to demagoguery and the principles of authoritarianism. As demonstrated, conservative youths develop more grey matter ('shorter' or preferred neural pathways/behaviors) around their amygdalas (fear processing center of the brain), whereas liberal youths develop more grey matter around the Anterior cingulate cortex (the reasoning center of the brain )."Does this imply that conservative adults can't change into liberals and vice versa? Can the adult brain be changed? If not, that would give some bad implications about the socialist desire to make people in general adopt a socialist mindset.Also, this quote is gold:"Furthermore, they all went out and voted for a malcontent snake-oil salesman who lives in a golden tower with his name written on it in caps lock. An abusive, spray-tanned, affluent egomaniac in a baggy suit with no redeeming qualities as a man, husband, father, and leader. The kind of adult you can't bring around because you're too ashamed and too worried about his behavior. Donald J. Trump is a person so fraught with hypocrisy and scandal that reasonable people are questioning whether he has a histrionic personality disorder or degenerative brain disease without a hint of hyperbole."A bit harsh perhaps but nevertheless a great quote

[Sympo]

Marcos wrote:

"It would be like saying that Neo-liberalism and private property is the main problem of our world"No it wouldn't.How can Capitalism exist without a market? Even state capitalist countries like the USSR had a market.To say "it is not Capitalism that causes war, it's the capitalist market" is like saying "it wasn't John Wilkes Booth that killed Lincoln, it was the bullet that was in the gun he carried""There is no need to find quotes, every message on its essence shows the main idea."You can't just answer the question "where is this implied?" with "I don't need to quote you because I know I'm right"

[Sympo]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"I know i provided lots of links for you to read so perhaps you missed this bit of info from the Cockburn article"I've read the quote now but what does it mean? Do you believe that Saudi Arabia and Qatar has a bigger role than the West in financing Salafi groups?

[Sympo]

Marcos wrote:

Every written message shows its purpose. Your message tries to indicate that wars are produced by the impulse of an individual or a capitalist power

So do you have any quote by me which implies that I believe this?If I have implied this then it should be very easy for you to prove. Just quote any sentence written by me which implies this."wars are not produced by capitalism per se either, they are produced by the capitalist market"I don't see the big difference but okay

[Author]

Posts