Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sympo wrote:Does this mean that the value of one individual sock that managed to get sold is equal to the SNLT of a sock?If the answer is yes, I have another question: what makes you think this? What "evidence" is there?
1) In essence, yes.2) It is a logical deduction based on the premises previously presented: we cannot apprehend value directly, all we can observe is prices paid and infer values therefrom: I believe there have been studies that show a correlation with labour time and price movements.
Sympo wrote:"I think that's all that's needed, the operation of the market means that instances of types of good containing excess labour will find themselves disfavoured, and they will only be exchanged at around the same value as other instances of the type."I'm sorry but I still don't get it. I think it might have something to do with how you use the word "value" in the above sentence.Do the 6 hour socks of a seller actually have the value of the 3 hour socks that are being sold on the market? Or is it that the price of his sock has to be below its value in order to be sold?Well, per the chain of logic, if it can't sell at 6 hours worth, it doesn't have six hours worth of value. The basis of value is it assumes that there is an open market, with replaceable goods, the buyers are trying to get the best deal they can. If, generally, socks are available at 3 hours, then a 6 hour sock only has a 3 hour value.Its important to note that value is not concrete within a commodity, it is abstract and represented by the commodity, and represents a general inter-human effort.Here's Charlie again:
Charlie wrote:Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]I've bolded the key bits.
At a slight risk. This is Marx' own working:
Quote:Let us take two commodities, e.g., corn and iron. The proportions in which they are exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron: e.g., 1 quarter corn = x cwt. iron. What does this equation tell us? It tells us that in two different things – in 1 quarter of corn and x cwt. of iron, there exists in equal quantities something common to both. The two things must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange value, must therefore be reducible to this third.A simple geometrical illustration will make this clear. In order to calculate and compare the areas of rectilinear figures, we decompose them into triangles. But the area of the triangle itself is expressed by something totally different from its visible figure, namely, by half the product of the base multiplied by the altitude. In the same way the exchange values of commodities must be capable of being expressed in terms of something common to them all, of which thing they represent a greater or less quantity.If the above is not true, then the entire ediface of Capital, all three volumes, is refuted.
I'll just add that (2) is the logical plank of the entire of Marx' theory, disprove that, and all of it falls down.
Sympo wrote: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.3 doesn't follow 4. I think you're missing some major premises.(these are slightly clunky, but more to the point)1: Commodities are goods that are exchanged between human beings.2: Rational humans will exchange equally (i.e. no-one wants to get the worst of an exchange).3:The physical qualities/uses of goods are incomensurate. The only universal property of commodities is that they are the products of human labour. Therefore only human labour can form the basis for equal exchange.4: Labour expended on a good that is not exchanged is wasted and does not add to value.I think that's all that's needed, the operation of the market means that instances of types of good containing excess labour will find themselves disfavoured, and they will only be exchanged at around the same value as other instances of the type.
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.Take three people, they make identical widgets each, Ann and Bella make 1 widgest an hour, Cheryl makes one every three hours. They all get put into a pot, so we don't know whose widget is whose. Alan, Brian and Charlie make thingummies, which they exchange for widgets they know how much time they spend making thingummies (about an hour each) and when they negotiate with Ann, Bella and Cheryl they agree to swap them one for one.The widgets have value, but that is unknowable, when compared to thingummies they get exchange value, a relative value compared to a thingummy: the value and exchange value don't exist in the things themselves, but in the social relations and the process that surrounds the exchange.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1921/georgia/index.htmKautsky's book, I've had a flick thropugh before.And, I think this is Trotsky's account:https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1922/red-white/ch05.htmI'm most of the way through the book, and it is disappointing: it's written in quite a partisan style, and it seems quite superficial. Also, having flicked through to its conclusions, the faults it finds give ammunition to the Bolshevik case, that had a bolshevik style party taken Georgia, they might have withstood the Russian invasion.As a brief account of perfidious Albion's role and of colonialism/imprialism in the region, it is usewful, though.
It's not so much actual changes, but pressures and balances of forces. Another option is for the capitalist class collectively to cut the social wage through deteriorating services. the class struggle to live on under capitalism deserves our support. the recent lecturers USS strike – one of the biggest strikes of our lifetimes – wasn't about an immediate loss of pensions, but future losses and about the compact over deferred wages. Resistence can be mobilised, and should be. The shift in the burden of taxes isn't automatic, but knowledge is power in this case, the clearer we are about what is going on, the easier for workers to remedy the situation.
1: Some of the tax would be to take NI contributions from working pensioners.2: Those of us in work, and calculating our retirement costs would start to cost in the retirement taxation costs.3: Pensioners would protest en-masse, lobby government and vote to porotect their own current interests.4: at the worst, costs of up-keep for pensioners would creep into current wages as working age off-spring begin to support their parents.
jondwhite wrote:Is the burden of taxation why employers are so keen on salary sacrifice schemes?It reduces gross salary, and thus also employers NI stamp.https://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk/about-pensions/saving-into-a-pension/salary-sacrifice
https://www.islington.gov.uk/about-the-council/voting-and-elections/elections-and-election-results/local-council-elections-2018/junctionMARTINBillThe Socialist Party (SP – GB) 52No overall change, 47 Labour, 1 GreenI was hoping to beat the UKIPper on 81 in another seat, never mind.
Hre we go. Same thing happened in Serbia: press full of "smart missiles" "humane mission" "precision" during the attacks,a nd afterwards: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43965032
Quote:Other coalition members have alerted the UK to times when civilians may have been harmed, a BBC investigation found.The MoD says "everything possible" is done to minimise the risk to civilians.But it has also been discovered that some RAF bombs have malfunctioned and strayed off target.I was faintly suprised, last night, to find that my frozen haddock I got from Iceland had been caught in the north sea, and packaged in China: I can only boggle as to how the value chain for that is remotely economical…
https://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/after-syria-raid-what-nextGreat article from paul Rogers.
Quote:Furthermore, any talk of the attack severely curtailing Syria’s CWcapabilities is nonsense. The main CW agent used has been chlorine, a gas widely used in industry and readily available on the open market. If Assad has seen his chlorine stocks depleted by the attack he can simply go to his iPad and order some more.Note his view on chemical attacks as a terror weapon to drain the swamp to get at fighters.A useful website he quotes:https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity
