Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/face-value-bitcoin-proof-work-labour-theory-value/2018/02/01This is a really interesting article, that tries to use Marx' thinking to "fix" bitcoin.
Quote:If there is value in the original vision of Bitcoin, to have a form of money that can be used to make payments across the internet in a way that makes government unnecessary and doesn’t reveal real names or physical location, it needs to be programmed differently. Such a currency would need to work in such a way that the supply of the currency increases when more mining capacity is added to the pool. This allows the market to regulate its exchange value by the natural increase and decrease of investment in mining relative to demand for the currency.It is possible to create a cyptocurrency with a with a stable value by simply eliminating the feedback loop, creating a rational cryptocurrency with a consistent work:coin ratio. Bitcoin could be made rational by increasing and decreasing the number of Bitcoins produced per block along with the increase and decrease of the difficulty of the proof of work. This way, the number of Bitcoins produced would scale in proportion with the investment in mining.Apologies for long quote, but worth it, I think.
Marx wrote:The value (the real exchange value) of all commodities (labour included) is determined by their cost of production, in other words by the labour time required to produce them. Their price is this exchange value of theirs, expressed in money. The replacement of metal money (and of paper or fiat money denominated in metal money) by labour money denominated in labour time would therefore equate the real value (exchange value) of commodities with their nominal value, price, money value.Equation of real value and nominal value, of value and price. But such is by no means the case. The value of commodities as determined by labour time is only their average value. This average appears as an external abstraction if it is calculated out as the average figure of an epoch, e.g. 1 lb. of coffee = 1s. if the average price of coffee is taken over 25 years; but it is very real if it is at the same time recognized as the driving force and the moving principle of the oscillations which commodity prices run through during a given epoch. This reality is not merely of theoretical importance: it forms the basis of mercantile speculation, whose calculus of probabilities depends both on the median price averages which figure as the centre of oscillation, and on the average peaks and average troughs of oscillation above or below this centre. The market value is always different, is always below or above this average value of a commodity. Market value equates itself with real value by means of its constant oscillations, never by means of an equation with real value as if the latter were a third party, but rather by means of constant non-equation of itself (as Hegel would say, not by way of abstract identity, but by constant negation of the negation, i.e. of itself as negation of real value).[15] In my pamphlet against Proudhon I showed that real value itself – independently of its rule over the oscillations of the market price (seen apart from its role as the law of these oscillations) – in turn negates itself and constantly posits the real value of commodities in contradiction with its own character, that it constantly depreciates or appreciates the real value of already produced commodities; this is not the place to discuss it in greater detail. [16] Price therefore is distinguished from value not only as the nominal from the real; not only by way of the denomination in gold and silver, but because the latter appears as the law of the motions which the former runs through. But the two are constantly different and never balance out, or balance only coincidentally and exceptionally. The price of a commodity constantly stands above or below the value of the commodity, and the value of the commodity itself exists only in this up-and-down movement of commodity prices. Supply and demand constantly determine the prices of commodities; never balance, or only coincidentally; but the cost of production, for its part, determines the oscillations of supply and demand. The gold or silver in which the price of a commodity, its market value, is expressed is itself a certain quantity of accumulated labour, a certain measure of materialized labour time. On the assumption that the production costs of a commodity and the production costs of gold and silver remain constant, the rise or fall of its market price means nothing more than that a commodity, = x labour time, constantly commands > or < x labour time on the market, that it stands above or beneath its average value as determined by labour time. The first basic illusion of the time-chitters consists in this, that by annulling thenominal difference between real value and market value, between exchange value and price – that is, by expressing value in units of labour time itself instead of in a given objectification of labour time, say gold and silver – that in so doing they also remove the real difference and contradiction between price and value. Given this illusory assumption it is self-evident that the mere introduction of the time-chit does away with all crises, all faults of bourgeois production. The money price of commodities = their real value; demand = supply; production = consumption; money is simultaneously abolished and preserved; the labour time of which the commodity is the product, which is materialized in the commodity, would need only to be measured in order to create a corresponding mirror-image in the form of a value-symbol, money, time-chits. In this way every commodity would be directly transformed into money; and gold and silver, for their part, would be demoted to the rank of all other commodities.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch02.htm
Just to bookmark:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-30/maduro-sets-venezuela-s-debut-cryptocurrency-sale-for-february
Quote:Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro said the country is pushing ahead with plans for the first sale of its cryptocurrency next month, and developing plans for its use with a national ID card held by at least 15 million Venezuelans…Previous drafts of the white paper showed each coin would be backed by one barrel of Venezuelan crude, though the coins can’t be exchanged for the actual oil. The petro will be divisible into 100 million units and the minimum exchange unit will be called the mene, according to the draft proposal.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42885211Would you Adam and Eve it.
Quote:A calamitous fall in the share price – off by over one-third, reducing the company's stock market value by £800m – looks the worst possible news for Capita….Capita, which issued a series of profit warnings last year, has again cut its profit forecast and revealed plans to raise £700m by issuing new shares…Capita had relied too much on acquisitions to drive growth and had also seen weakness in new contracts, he added.Deja Vu.
A quick look for top executive pay brought up this:"The average pay of FTSE 100 chief executives fell 17 per cent to £4.5m in 2016, according to analysis published on Thursday by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and the High Pay Centre, a think-tank. The single figure for pay includes salary, bonuses, incentives and employer pension contributions. "https://www.ft.com/content/5cfa1cd6-7791-11e7-a3e8-60495fe6ca71So, we can say top 100 Chief Execs cost £450 million p.a. The highest paid CEO is on £48 million, though.Obviously, that's just multiplying the average (which is fine for our purposes). Here is the CIPD report teh article refers to:https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/7571-ceo-pay-in-the-ftse100-report-web_tcm18-26441.pdf"the average pay ratio between FTSE 100 CEOs and their average employee wages (excluding pensions and share-based pay) is 138:1, down from 156:1""For example, the average headcount of FTSE 100 companies in the industrial sector is 43,112 in 2016. On average, the CEOs of these companies earn just under £3.5 million and the average staff package is around £43,000."Obviously, that is just CEOs not boards of directors and other top management roles.
Ike Pettigrew wrote:Yes, but this is just words on [virtual] paper. My concern here is with what your ideas actually really mean and I think the point is conceded: in practice, socialism would be a statist society, albeit a soft state. I realise that socialism is not a statist ideology, and I do not mean to suggest otherwise, and I also appreciate that the 'state' that would in reality exist in socialism may not be regarded as a state and it may not even be acknowledged as such, but that is what it would be. Socialism may not be statist, but statism is the result of socialism when you think about it properly. It's just of a soft state variety, comparable to what you would have under almost-all types of market-based anarchism.I'm afraid I don't accept that point. Let us return to the group going to the cinema model, is that a state? The decision, ultimately, may rest on a minority exercising and effective veto, you may not even get to go to the film you prefer, but because you want to go with your friends, you go anyway. Lets expand it a little, there's enough people for a film club: you don't have to go see the movies, you can miss a few without doing as much harm as with splitting on a close friend for the night. Also, you might have delegated functions, instead of choosing from a list of what is on, a person or persons choose the showings, and from time to time you fill in a pre3ference swurvey, or ask them to show a type of movie you like that is underrpresented, you might even, if you can arrange the facilities, allow specialist sub groups to meet and watch unpopular movies in genres they like.Now, that is democracy between lots of friends, where is the state? There are no guns, no monopoly of violence, people contribute according to their ability, and take according to their need, where the film enjoyment of each shall be the condition for the film enjoyment of all. There is no need for a monolith co-ordinating everything, but a reproduceable, scalable group relationship.So, not just words on a page, but a practical, real life example, for you to dissect in detail.
Kautsky remains a wqorthy opponent on this subject:
Quote:There could be no greater error than to consider that one of the tasks of a socialist society is to see that the law of value is brought into perfect operation and that only equivalent values are exchanged. The law of values is rather a law peculiar to a society for production for exchange.Production for exchange is that manner of production in which with a developed division of labor independent producers produce for one another. But no manner of production can exist without a definite proportionality in production. The number of labor powers at the disposal of society is limited, and production can only be continued when a corresponding number of productive forces are active in each branch of existing production. In a communistic society labor will be systematically regulated and the labor power be assigned to the individual branches of production according to a definite plan. In the production for exchange this regulation is obtained through the law of value. The value of each product is determined not by the labor time actually applied to it but by the socially necessary time for its production. With the modification that this law receives in capitalist production by profits rye are not concerned because this would only unnecessarily complicate the analysis without bringing any new knowledge to the question. The socially necessary labor time in each branch of labor is determined on the one side by the height of its technique in any society and the customary exertion of labor, etc., in short through the average productive power of the individual laborers; on the other side, however, by the number of products demanded by the social necessity of a particular branch of labor, and finally by the total number of labor powers at the disposal of society. Free competition sees to it to-day that the price of products, that is to say the amount of money that one can exchange for them, is continually tending towards the value determined. by the socially necessary labor time. In this manner the result is attained that the production in each department of labor, in spite of the fact that it is not regulated from any central point, never goes very far, or continues long away from the proper level. Without the law of value the anarchy that rules in the production for exchange would soon end in an inextricable chaos.https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/socrev/pt2-1.htmIn fact, though., he misses the fact that Marx repeatedly notes that the market system itself radically divorces prive from value, the greater the advance of capitalism the more price will deviate from value.Now, abstract labour time probably isn't worth measuring, except in broad terms (assuming a rough equalisation of the working week, simple headcounts will suffice per branch of industry).Concrete labour, measures of available doctors, plumbers, etc. would be more useful, not through some sort of registry, but stats on training, employment, etc. would need to be kept, possibly at the firm level and shareed for deep data mioning.
Ah, missed one..
Carlos wrote:The value of labour-power is determined, as in the case of every other commodity, by the labour-time necessary for the production, and consequently also the reproduction, of this special article. So far as it has value, it represents no more than a definite quantity of the average labour of society incorporated in it. Labour-power exists only as a capacity, or power of the living individual. Its production consequently pre-supposes his existence. Given the individual, the production of labour-power consists in his reproduction of himself or his maintenance. For his maintenance he requires a given quantity of the means of subsistence. Therefore the labour-time requisite for the production of labour-power reduces itself to that necessary for the production of those means of subsistence; in other words, the value of labour-power is the value of the means of subsistence necessary for the maintenance of the labourer. Labour-power, however, becomes a reality only by its exercise; it sets itself in action only by working. But thereby a definite quantity of human muscle, nerve, brain, &c., is wasted, and these require to be restored. This increased expenditure demands a larger income. [6] If the owner of labour-power works to-day, to-morrow he must again be able to repeat the same process in the same conditions as regards health and strength. His means of subsistence must therefore be sufficient to maintain him in his normal state as a labouring individual. His natural wants, such as food, clothing, fuel, and housing, vary according to the climatic and other physical conditions of his country. On the other hand, the number and extent of his so-called necessary wants, as also the modes of satisfying them, are themselves the product of historical development, and depend therefore to a great extent on the degree of civilisation of a country, more particularly on the conditions under which, and consequently on the habits and degree of comfort in which, the class of free labourers has been formed. [7] In contradistinction therefore to the case of other commodities, there enters into the determination of the value of labour-power a historical and moral element. Nevertheless, in a given country, at a given period, the average quantity of the means of subsistence necessary for the labourer is practically known.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm
Sympo,the latter is true in both cases, the value of labour power is the value of the socially necessary labour time put into proucing it.Socially necessary labour time is value, it's a bit like asking what is the length of an inch.
Chuck wrote:A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S1
Chucky wrote:Labour is the substance, and the immanent measure of value, but has itself no value.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch19.htm
harlie wrote:Secondly, the product is the property of the capitalist and not that of the labourer, its immediate producer. Suppose that a capitalist pays for a day’s labour-power at its value; then the right to use that power for a day belongs to him, just as much as the right to use any other commodity, such as a horse that he has hired for the day. To the purchaser of a commodity belongs its use, and the seller of labour-power, by giving his labour, does no more, in reality, than part with the use-value that he has sold. From the instant he steps into the workshop, the use-value of his labour-power, and therefore also its use, which is labour, belongs to the capitalist. By the purchase of labour-power, the capitalist incorporates labour, as a living ferment, with the lifeless constituents of the product. From his point of view, the labour-process is nothing more than the consumption of the commodity purchased, i. e., of labour-power; but this consumption cannot be effected except by supplying the labour-power with the means of production. The labour-process is a process between things that the capitalist has purchased, things that have become his property. The product of this process belongs, therefore, to him, just as much as does the wine which is the product of a process of fermentation completed in his cellar.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm
In fact, this is the most important part of Marx' work, because it means that the whole relationship of receiving a wage/salary is exploitative. Our labour power, our abstract ability to work, is alienated, and treated as if it were a commodity like any other: our labour is entirely unpaid. Just as if you buy a screwdriver, it is yours to do with as you please, so too the employer of human labour power. Sadly a human mind comes attached.We are not paid for the work we do, for our outputs. The workers in a car factory aren't selling car assembley nor car parts to their employer, they are selling the right to their employer to direct their labour upon his/her capital.The source of profit, then is the difference between the value cost of producing and reproducing our ability to work and the value of the work we do.This is a key concept, and drives prettyy much everything else.
Michael Roberts has some interesting notes:https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/carillion-and-the-dead-end-of-privatisation/
Quote:But it seems that it had taken on too many projects from the UK public sector at prices that delivered very narrow margins. So, as debt issuance rose and profitability disappeared, cash began to haemorrhage. Carillion ran up a huge debt pile of £900m. But this did not stop the Carillion board lying about their financial state, continuing to pay themselves large salaries and bonuses and fat dividends to their shareholders. In contrast, the company did little to reduce a mounting deficit on the pensions fund of their 40,000 global staff, putting their pensions in jeopardy. Indeed, Carillion raised its dividends every year for 16 years while running up a pensions deficit of £587m. It paid out nearly £200m in dividends in the last two years alone. The recently sacked CEO took home £660,000 a year plus bonuses.If they continued to raise dividends, this starts to sound like a form of ponzi scheme, which is POK as long as contracts come rolling in and investors come to join them, but clearly Carillion exhausted this particular money tree…
Starting from a better definition of socialism as a conscious association, so a deliberate choice (like my democracy between friends example) to stay together, as opposed to accidental association of peasant proprietors or nation states, may be a more productive way to consider things.A part of freedom is being left alone, and so we would want to, as much as is practicable, allow people to follow their ownself development: i.e. a society in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. Nearly the Kantian notion of treating each as an end in themself (we could reformulate that as "act in the way which will enable the freedom of others").But, that is a one sided understanding of freedom, dropping dead of a heart attack is the opposite of freedom, and no amount of volition would enable us to agree to be helped. We can only be as free as we help each otehr to be.On a wider scale, we'd have to start from voluntary associations within an aegis of agreed principles, and where we use our common wealth to avoid personal domination (e.g. housing so people can leave abusive relationships without facing homelessness and loss of amenities). etc.Any system can turn nasty, if you only look at the system on paper, as a kind of commodity fetishism (which is what people are engaging in when they ask us to tell them that we have a plan for socialism); but starting from free human beings wanting to be free and actively defending that freedom, and having the means to do so (and also denying any monopoloisation of the m,eans to dominate or prevent freedom) produces a diferent answer: are you willing to be a slave?
That seems to me precisely the point, that it doesn't matter: and as long as we collectively retain the competence competence, and can call in any institution top interogate its purpose, the principle of freedom obtains.
Ike Pettigrew wrote:In the example of the theatre, some expert (or group of experts) has to decide how to ensure that everybody has a practical possibility of escape (and surely the same decision is made under capitalism, though that's irrelevant for the moment).No, the point is:a) That if we aim to maximise the use values available to all, we maximise the possibility of freedom for all.b) that in producing goods for all, there is no profit motive counter-acting providing for all. Capitalist firms first and foremost must satisfy the profit criterion, which prevents them from taking human need as the starting point of action.c) Abundance means each would be able to choose their exit point without having to have it allocated by experts.And I am assuming that it is possible to ensure that 100% can be evacuated in a fire. Accept or reject that premise if you will.
Ike Pettigrew wrote:But my conclusion is that even under socialism, somebody will have to swing the blade, pull the lever, make the decision, etc., not just in regard to the obvious subject-matter where most of us would naturally defer to an expert, but also in non-technical areas. I think socialism will have its own 'politics', pools of self-interest will develop and there will be disagreements between vested interests and a need to exert authority. You will not be able to completely remove moral privilege: i.e. the situation where an individual or group has sovereignty over others, permanently, temporarily or fleetingly.So what? I'm happy to concede to the life guard dragging my idiot arse out of the freezing lake water. Peter sober needs protecting from Peter drunk. Any such authority would be contingent and shifting, not sovereign: sovereignty would be the feature that we abolish (sovereignty I would understand by the great German legal term Comptence Competence).Want to live on an island on your own, go ahead, we'll help you. Want to live in a teaming metropolis, fine, we'll help you.
Condorcet wrote some important stuff:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet%27s_jury_theoremThe Jury theorem provides a theoretical unerpinning for democracy. He developed:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_methodA voting system that although complicated to explain, does uphold the majority criterion while allowing ranked choice voting and avoiding spoilers. he also was responsible for:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_criterion
Quote:The Condorcet candidate (a.k.a. Condorcet winner) is the person who would win a two-candidate election against each of the other candidates in a plurality vote.[1][2] For a set of candidates, the Condorcet winner is always the same regardless of the voting system in question. A voting system satisfies the Condorcet criterion (English: /kɒndɔːrˈseɪ/) if it always chooses the Condorcet winner when one exists.And the Concorcet Paradoxhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_paradoxIs important to us and any social choice theory…
