Is the Extraction of Surplus Value Immoral?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Funny you should say that but isn't that what the religious nuts told us would happen if the world was run by athiests?

Is this the source of our disagreement, Vin?Do you identify 'justice and morality' with 'religion'?If you do, I don't. Perhaps that is why we are talking at crossed purposes, comrade?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Vin Maratty wrote:

Well, as a Marxist I believe ALL ideas come from material conditions …

Well, as a Marxist, too, I believe ALL ideas come from humans.

These two statements are not contradictory.

Depending upon the interpretation of 'come from' which is accepted, they can be.If 'come from' means 'created by', then they are contradictory.

Yes, obviously ideas are not created by material conditions but both statements said "come from" not "created by".The original statements are not contradictory because ideas obviously come from humans as only humans have ideas but the content of these ideas comes from material conditions, i.e. human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world.Anyway, this was just a passing comment. So back to surplus value.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

So back to surplus value.

 “If for the imminent overthrow of the present mode of distribution of the products of labour with its crying contrasts of want and luxury,  starvation and debauchery, we had no better guarantee than the consciousness that the mode of distribution is unjust and that justice must eventually triumph, we should be in a very bad way and we might have a long time to wait” Engels, Anti-During "What opinion should we have of a chemist, who instead of studying the actual laws of the molecular changes in the composition and decomposition of matter, and on that foundation solving definite problems, claimed to regulate the composition and decomposition of matter by means of ‘eternal ideas’, of  ‘naturalite’ and ‘affinite’?  Do we really know anymore about ‘usury’ when we say it contradicts "justice éternelle,", ‘equite eternelle’, ‘mutualite eternal’ and other  ‘verites eternal’ than the fathers of the church did when they said it was incompatible with ‘grace eternelle’, ‘fair eternal’ and ’le valante eternal de diev’?" Marx, CapitalPardon the French   

[ALB]

That is precisely the question: Is the extraction of surplus value against some eternal, "transhistorical" (to use the new in-word) principle of morality or justice or is it simply against the interest of the class of wage and salary workers?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

…ideas obviously come from humans as only humans have ideas…

Yes, the source of ideas is humans.

ALB wrote:

… but the content of these ideas comes from material conditions, i.e. human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world.

No, this contradicts the previous half of the statement.You're playing with words, ALB.What are 'ideas' if not 'the content of ideas'? How can an 'idea' not have 'content'?Ideas come from humans, not 'the surrounding real world'. These ideas are then tested in practice upon 'the surrounding real world'. If the human ideas seem to fit the 'real world', they are then adopted as 'true'. But 'human ideas' can be wrong, even after they seem to fit with practice and are deemed to be true. That's why 'truth' has a history. Without this stance, 'truth' must be eternal once 'discovered', which science now knows to be untrue. Truth is a social construct, not a reflection of 'reality' which humans passively induct.Humans are not puppets of some external force. That notion provides the basis for the Leninist Party.The concept that the 'real world determines human ideas' is Engelsian and 19th century positivist.The concept that 'human ideas are tested against the real world through practice' is Marxian and 21st century critical.Furthermore, one's understanding of 'value' will be determined by one's view of this relationship between human ideas and the 'real world'. 'Value' is a social construct which humans use to explain exploitation.

Marx, Capital I, p. 138, wrote:

Not an atom of matter enters into the objectivity of commodities as values; in this it is the direct opposite of the coarsely sensuous objectivity of commodities as physical objects.

'Value' is the creation of human understanding, using the stance of the social-objectivity of the proletariat. It is proven by the sensuous activity of humans with the physical objects.'Value' does not exist from the stance of the bourgeoisie. There is no universal, objective, vantage point from which to understand the world, neither for physics nor for socio-economics.With the end of the proletariat, 'value' will disappear. It is a social and historical construct.

[Anonymous]

In contrast to the quotes above, some would and do argue that Marx is being morally indignant in the following:  "… within the capitalist system all methods for raising the social productivity of labour are put into effect at the cost of the individual worker; … all means for the development of production undergo a dialectical inversion so that they become means of domination and exploitation of the producers; they distort the worker into a fragment of a man, they degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, they destroy the actual content of his labour by turning it into a torment; they alienate [entfremden] from him the intellectual potentialities of the labour process in the same proportion as science is incorporated in it as an independent power; they deform the conditions under which he works, subject him during the labour process to a despotism the more hateful for its meanness; they transform his life-time into working-time, and drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the juggernaut of capital."Capital  I don't believe this is morality at work and I cannot find any direct reference to working class morality within Engels and Marx but then I have not read everything they wrote.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

…ideas obviously come from humans as only humans have ideas…

Yes, the source of ideas is humans.

ALB wrote:

… but the content of these ideas comes from material conditions, i.e. human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world.

No, this contradicts the previous half of the statement.You're playing with words, ALB.What are 'ideas' if not 'the content of ideas'? How can an 'idea' not have 'content'?

They can't. That was my point but I do have to confess to playing with words — the words of Anton Pannekoek. The sentence "the human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world" are the opening words of the brilliant third part of his 1937 article on."Society and Mind in Marxian philosophy". He continues:

Quote:

We have already said that this world is not restricted to physical matter only, but comprises everything that is objectively observable. The thoughts and ideas of our fellow men, which we observe by means of their conversation or by our reading are included in this real world. Although fanciful objects of these thoughts such as angels, spirits or an Absolute Idea do not belong to it, the belief in such ideas is a real phenomenon, and may have a notable influence on historical events.The impressions of the world penetrate the human mind as a continuous stream. All our observations of the surrounding world, all experiences of our lives are continually enriching the contents of our memories and our subconscious minds.

I think the confusion has arisen because a distinction is not being made between "ideas" and the "sense-impressions", "sense-data", "sensations" or whatever you want to call them which are the raw material as it were which the mind works on to create ideas and which arise from the surrounding real world not the human mind. Ideas are abstractions from the outside world made, yes of course, by humans.But we been here before a number of times now.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

But we been here before a number of times now.

Yeah, but I don't seem to be able to get to the bottom of our thoughts.Perhaps I'm moving away from Pannekoek, because I'm starting to see contradictions in what he says in this extract, as compared with what he says in Lenin as Philosopher.Further, I've since discovered Marx's views on the social nature of 'sense-impressions', which adds to my disagreement with Pannekoek's statement that "The impressions of the world penetrate the human mind as a continuous stream". Following Marx, we should argue that only those 'sense-impressions' that are selected by humans (using a social theory) are allowed to 'penetrate'. Thus, it would be a selective, discontinuous, incomplete, 'stream'.In fact, it would be a world crafted by human understanding. Which leads me to:

Panneokoek wrote:

Although fanciful objects of these thoughts such as angels, spirits or an Absolute Idea do not belong to it [the real world], the belief in such ideas is a real phenomenon, and may have a notable influence on historical events.

If belief is 'real' and influences events, to all intents and purposes, then, 'angels, spirits or an Absolute Idea' must belong to the 'real world'.What is the difference between the 'idea of an angel', if 'real', and 'an angel in the real world'?This can only be resolved if we argue that the 'real world' we experience is a human creation, and humans can get this 'created world' wrong, according to other humans, employing other social theories.That is, 'angels' exist for some societies, but not for others.At least it will make sense of the 'devils' of Stalinism!

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

That is, 'angels' exist for some societies, but not for others.

That was the corner I thought you'd end painting yourself into !But we've been here before too. So back to surplus value.Just thought. Maybe we should start a thread on "Did angels ever exist, and how many of them could have danced on a pinhead?"

[Anonymous]

Ah well. Interesting while it lasted  Every thread ends up with the same discussion

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

That was the corner I thought you'd end painting yourself into !

It's not 'me' that's 'painted itself into this corner', but the human race!

ALB wrote:

Just thought. Maybe we should start a thread on "Did angels ever exist, and how many of them could have danced on a pinhead?"

Marked "For the Attention Of" which society? That must be included!

ALB wrote:

But we've been here before too. So back to surplus value.

Ahhh… questions of 'Value'.Marked "For the Attention Of" which class?FAO Proletariat.There is no special position of observation in the universe of physics which does not require an FAO. To question is to mark FAO.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Ah well. Interesting while it lasted Every thread ends up with the same discussion

Unfortunately, Vin, to discuss 'value' is to discuss 'angels'.The bourgeois economists regard Marx's concept of value as akin to discussing angels. Even Marx said, as I quoted before, that there is no 'matter' in value; we can add, just like in angels, which also don't contain 'matter'.Doesn't this present a worthwhile discussion? As ALB suggested out, has the human race 'painted itself into a corner' so that we can't scientifically discriminate between value and angels?I think we can, as I've argued on other threads, but it's not through adhering to Engelsian positivism and the Leninist Party, but through adopting a democratic method.In effect, we proletarians can vote angels out of scientific consideration. But we need a society like Communism to allow this to happen, both in the 'voting' sense and in the 'development of humans away from gods' sense.Still, I'm sorry that you feel the way you do, comrade. I'm sure others do, too.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

If one means that 'human creativity and ideas' are a 'material condition', then I agree.

 No disagreement there! 'Value' as Marx argued, in Capital and elswhere. is a social relationship and cannot be understood in terms of 'justice' and 'morality'. It can only be understood as a chemist understands the laws of  moleculer change, because frankly it would be silly if the chemist  "claimed to regulate the composition and decomposition of matter by means of eternal justice".     

[ALB]

I don't think value as a non-tangible social relationship and angels as a non-tangible figment of the imagination can be put on a par just because both are non-tangible. Social relationships exist while angels don't. The extraction of surplus value happens too and is not a figment of the imagination, as I'm sure you agree.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

It can only be understood as a chemist understands the laws of moleculer change, because frankly it would be silly if the chemist "claimed to regulate the composition and decomposition of matter by means of eternal justice".

Are you arguing that chemists stand outside of justice? This is a 19th century view of science that most humans no longer accept. Is Zyklon B just a weedkiller? What about Oppenheimer's statement that 'physics has known sin'?The separation of something called 'matter' (which can't be defined, and is why most philosophers now talk about 'real', which includes thoughts and ideas) from humanity, and which can be 'objectively' understood and manipulated, has been rejected.If Communists continue to adhere to discredited theories of science, they will continue to lose any thinking adherents, and religion (whose thinkers already know these issues, as ALB's quote on the other thread showed), will thus step into the breech.Science means justice, morality, ethics. The only question is 'Whose'?If we don't answer that question, the religions will. 'Heads in the sand' is not an attractive posture, comrades.

[Author]

Posts