Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
My point is that an ‘individual’ is a social construct. Everything we think we are and even the language and ideas we use is a product of social history. A human individual is impossible without society – I always find that rather dialectically liberating.
It was unfortunate that my last cover design would be (justly) criticized but it was rather inevitable since the editors changed their minds about what it should feature at the last minute and I had no time to contemplate the design. I checked with them as to the Chinese character to be used and was given the go-ahead. I’m now retired from designing the Standard and have mainly enjoyed working with comrades to the best of my abilities. For many months I was alone in designing it which led to somewhat of a ‘burn-out’ and this together with Covid and the debate about payment the whole process became rather strange. I wish the best of luck to my replacement and now I can return to writing for our beloved journal.
I take the warning above and this will be my final feed for the Bird. As usual he deliberately misunderstands me. As even he must know Marx regarded socialist consciousness as the FIRST time in history where we are aware of material reality in terms of the evolution of the economics of private property and that this is what will enable us to change social relations rather than the evolution of economic relations that have changed us! At the moment the laws of capitalism are independent of the wishes and intentions of governments etc. because they have no understanding of the materialist reality of their own economic system and the need to replace it.
It doesn’t surprise me that LBird rejects Marx’s LTV along with his theory of historical evolution – one wonders by what perverse stretch of his wild imaginings he believes himself to be a Marxist since he rejects all of his discoveries. Just as the laws of nature are not affected by the beliefs and needs of humanity so are the laws of capitalist economics – they are independent of the desires of governments and other groups. That’s why it’s called ‘the materialist conception of history’.
‘So, for instance you own 20% of a manufacturing company, you cannot simply take 20% of the land, or 20% of the stock and say that “that’s mine”.’
But I thought that’s exactly what happens if a company goes into bankruptcy and all of its assets go into liquidation – the owners of stocks and shares get part of the money specifically because they ‘own’ some of the assets.
BD – The ‘belief system’ is backed up by the State and is very real. Stop paying your mortgage or rent and you soon find that out. Money, in all its forms, allows exchange of equal values in different forms and this is dependent on the LTV which is not a ‘belief system’ since very few of us even know of its existence.
So ‘the pieces of paper’ (stocks, shares) can be redeemed (sold) at their monetary value at the discretion of the investor? I appreciate the anticipated profits are speculative. The difference between stocks and shares used to be that the former gave a regular guaranteed rate of interest whereas the latter could rise and fall with the success or failure of the industry involved?
Surely stocks are not just ‘pieces of paper’ as they represent the value of the investment in money terms? This is then converted to capital to extract surplus value – is that not correct? As to the idea that value is an abstraction in Marxist terms – this is correct in terms of the dialectic explanation of the history of value that takes up much of the first part of Das Capital but exchange value is tightly associated with the LTV and so is not an abstraction in the common usage sense.
ALB – I wasn’t really referring to Marcuse’s theory only that the media subjects us all to a 24/7 normalization of bourgeois ideology and that our case, in that context, will always appear ‘counter-intuitive’. Rather like our case against reformism I think we should always debate single issues like taxation within the framework of ruling class ideology. From their point of view taxation is a bad thing but that from a majority point of view it is a good thing. It is in their interests that we should all believe that high taxation is an evil – hence the propaganda. You have yourself admitted that socialists are different in being able to see this class contradiction and avoid the conditioning. As to why this is the case Marcuse had some interesting ideas but as with the work of Marx we can accept his analysis without always accepting his conclusions.
‘But that doesn’t prevent some of them understanding some of what we are saying, as for example on taxation. No need to beat ourselves up over us supposedly not getting this part of our case across.’
I take a more holistic (dialectical) view in that our case is integrated and coherent and that to isolate particular elements tends to miss the point. The term ‘counter-intuitive’ used in this debate is, for me, the most interesting and important consideration to emerge. The vast majority think ideologically rather than logically as the result of conditioning. The realization of the perverse coherence of bourgeois ideology across all subjects is an important aid to socialist consciousness. In fact the only reason for us to debate any single issue is to point this out.
‘Is that view based on what your fellow trade union members think or on what people down the pub do?’
Both plus many highly intelligent people that I have met during 40 years of prosecuting the Party case. They also believe in the need for leaders, that capitalism can be reformed, that profit is payment for risk, that history teaches us nothing and has no meaning, that low taxes and high property values are a good thing, that nobody would work without the carrot and stick of wages and the poverty of unemployment, that war is a necessary evil….need I go on? The conformity resulting from the conditioning by the matrix is mind boggling.
‘Personally I think many workers do “get” what we are saying about taxes’
‘Yes, my members were under no illusions about that and the causes of inflation as well.’
Wishful thinking I’m afraid – nobody outside of the Party ‘gets it’ in my experience. They also believe they get a ‘fair wage for a fair days work’ and have no clue as to the origin of profit.
‘But I always thought that the value of labour-power was unique; because unlike other commodities, it was determined by the combative power of the respective antagonists, the employer and the employee, and the level of wages stemmed from the class struggle,…’
More to do with the supply of and demand for skilled labour power I would say.
