Marx and Automation
- This topic has 650 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Quote:I align more with anarchism, then marxism.
Michel, my comrades on the forum have suffered from my repetitive quotations so i hope they forebear with it, but perhaps this observation may well be new to you.It is a quote from a worker, a writer and a thinker who found favour with Marx and Engels, no small feat in itself – Joseph Dietzgen
Quote:"The terms anarchist, socialist, communist should be so "mixed" together, that no muddlehead could tell which is which. Language serves not only the purpose of distinguishing things but also of uniting them- for it is dialectic." June 9, 1886"For my part, I lay little stress on the distinction, whether a man is an anarchist or a socialist, because it seems to me that too much weight is attributed to this difference…..While the anarchists may have mad and brainless individuals in their ranks, the socialists have an abundance of cowards. For this reason I care as much for one as the other…. The majority in both camps are still in great need of education, and this will bring about a reconciliation in time."- April 20, 1886No worries, Alan, Personallly I love good solid quotes! A small point on TWC and fictious capital, to broaden the term. There maybe such a thing/concept as "unquantifiable" fictitious capital/value. Isn't the whole so-called Royal Family-Apparatus, a form of "unquantifiable" fictitious value? A nonsense founded in the conceptual-perception of people? Why would anyone, in Canada, pay 35.99 for a plate, worth in reality 99 cents, with a picture of a royal wedding on it? Yet, Canadians do pay and pay in large numbers. Doesn't this pricing index seem a bit arbitrary and artificially fabricated? Hence, how the conceptual-perceptions of a segment of the canadian population can imagine into existence value, value that is not really there. This is post-modernism at its best.Cheers,M. Bellemare
MBellemare wrote:No worries, Alan, Personallly I love good solid quotes! A small point on TWC and fictious capital, to broaden the term. There maybe such a thing/concept as "unquantifiable" fictitious capital/value. Isn't the whole so-called Royal Family-Apparatus, a form of "unquantifiable" fictitious value? A nonsense founded in the conceptual-perception of people? Why would anyone, in Canada, pay 35.99 for a plate, worth in reality 99 cents, with a picture of a royal wedding on it? Yet, Canadians do pay and pay in large numbers. Doesn't this pricing index seem a bit arbitrary and artificially fabricated? Hence, how the conceptual-perceptions of a segment of the canadian population can imagine into existence value, value that is not really there. This is post-modernism at its best.Cheers,M. BellemareAgain you seem to be using the term value and price interchangeably. In marxist terms they are not. The price of the plate may well be $35.99, the cost of producing the plate may well be 99 cents, however the Value in Marxist terms is neither of those to things.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:MBellemare wrote:No worries, Alan, Personallly I love good solid quotes! A small point on TWC and fictious capital, to broaden the term. There maybe such a thing/concept as "unquantifiable" fictitious capital/value. Isn't the whole so-called Royal Family-Apparatus, a form of "unquantifiable" fictitious value? A nonsense founded in the conceptual-perception of people? Why would anyone, in Canada, pay 35.99 for a plate, worth in reality 99 cents, with a picture of a royal wedding on it? Yet, Canadians do pay and pay in large numbers. Doesn't this pricing index seem a bit arbitrary and artificially fabricated? Hence, how the conceptual-perceptions of a segment of the canadian population can imagine into existence value, value that is not really there. This is post-modernism at its best.Cheers,M. BellemareAgain you seem to be using the term value and price interchangeably. In marxist terms they are not. The price of the plate may well be $35.99, the cost of producing the plate may well be 99 cents, however the Value in Marxist terms is neither of those to things.
With the introduction of modern machinery in the production the the cost of production might less than that. Workers are being robbed all over the earth by the capitalist class
i The price of something can be above what it costs to produce it for a variety of reasons. I guess in your case of the plate it is because it is a branded product with a monopoly and limited production. Thus there is no competition in the production of the thing unless someone produces pirated copies of it; which would be illegal. Monopoly producers of a commodity are free to limit and restrict supply in order for it to command a ridiculously high price and profit. Debeers the diamond producing company used to it. The same applies after a fashion to things like Nike underwear which might cost $2 to produce yet sell for $50. Although in that case their can be competition with other types of branded underwear and then a significant amount of the production cost of the ‘use value’ of a item is in the cost of persuading people that it is that much more useful eg advertising. Advertising has a considerable creative artistic element to it when it comes to its productivity which might be difficult to reproduce. But throw enough money at it employing artistic and creative producers of marketing campaigns etc you could sell anything with a fictitious use value. What it is and why it is that people find some commodities useful and what is or isn’t a fictitious use value lies mostly outside the scope of the Marxist analysis. Marx actually said that somewhere early on in volume one. And I guess he deliberately introduced the bible as one his examples of a commodity as a use value. Although all his early examples eg linen, coat and bible were also commodities that in the early 19thcentury were still being produced mostly by self employed artisans and the self employed simple commodity producers.
I agree with you David B. on most all you've stated. I think you see the concept of creative-power, and how it informs value, price and wage. And your right persuading people as to certain artificially fabricated price, value and wages is a major task of capitalists. Hence why controlling the means of both mental and physical production are so vital to capitalists. It seems to me, that we are normalized to pay certain prices and to conceive certain imagined values onto things. And if capitalism, was not the dominant political economic framework of society, we would cast-aside and/or discontinue the production of many capitalist commodities.
As for sub-comandante Marcos, and his statement that I am not using the term "value" correctly, I see value as arbitrary and as an artificial social construction. As a result, I am using the concept of "value" arbitrarily and as an artificial social construction. Just like Marx did, although he would never admit it, because he couched it in labor-time, quantifiable labor-time! Quantifiable labor-time, which is only validated when it is realized in circulation.MBellemare wrote:I agree with you David B. on most all you've stated. I think you see the concept of creative-power, and how it informs value, price and wage. And your right persuading people as to certain artificially fabricated price, value and wages is a major task of capitalists. Hence why controlling the means of both mental and physical production are so vital to capitalists. It seems to me, that we are normalized to pay certain prices and to conceive certain imagined values onto things. And if capitalism, was not the dominant political economic framework of society, we would cast-aside and/or discontinue the production of many capitalist commodities.
As for sub-comandante Marcos, and his statement that I am not using the term "value" correctly, I see value as arbitrary and as an artificial social construction. As a result, I am using the concept of "value" arbitrarily and as an artificial social construction. Just like Marx did, although he would never admit it, because he couched it in labor-time, quantifiable labor-time! Quantifiable labor-time, which is only validated when it is realized in circulation.Am I the only person on this forum that thinks that the use of the term "sub-comandante Marcos" is actually an attempt at a racially stereotyped slur?
It appears to be more a play on a forum user's name drawing attention to what is perceived to be the tone of his responses by Michel, and i would be slightly hesitant in suggesting it possessed any racist undertones, Tim-nice-but-dim, from Al-everyone's-pal.I think there is a slight tendency with Party members to be overly harsh in their criticisms of people who, for very good reasons, have never heard the Party's very unique case and we seem to expect that their socialist views spring fully developed like Minerva rather than being based on a learning curve and education.Our website is very extensive and despite being fairly easy to navigate is still daunting to discover all of our positions and learn the nuances of our principles so even expecting some effort by visitors on their own behalf to search out out interpretations of Marxism can be too demanding at times.Eventually, real differences do arise and are not resolved but i hope visitors do go away with an increased understanding of the SPGB and are able to recommend to others the comradely reception they receive on the forum and perhaps we may well have a heightened interaction of traffic on the forum.
alanjjohnstone wrote:It appears to be more a play on a forum user's name drawing attention to what is perceived to be the tone of his responses by Michel, and i would be slightly hesitant in suggesting it possessed any racist undertones, Tim-nice-but-dim, from Al-everyone's-pal.I think there is a slight tendency with Party members to be overly harsh in their criticisms of people who, for very good reasons, have never heard the Party's very unique case and we seem to expect that their socialist views spring fully developed like Minerva rather than being based on a learning curve and education.Our website is very extensive and despite being fairly easy to navigate is still daunting to discover all of our positions and learn the nuances of our principles so even expecting some effort by visitors on their own behalf to search out out interpretations of Marxism can be too demanding at times.Eventually, real differences do arise and are not resolved but i hope visitors do go away with an increased understanding of the SPGB and are able to recommend to others the comradely reception they receive on the forum and perhaps we may well have a heightened interaction of traffic on the forum.What is he calling everybody by his proper name, or his proper ID ? Why he has to call me sub-comandante Marcos ? He is only a fresh guy, because he does not know me and I do not know him, and even do not egen care. Second I did not make the statement that he said that I made. He is lying and he is wrong..
Marcos wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:It appears to be more a play on a forum user's name drawing attention to what is perceived to be the tone of his responses by Michel, and i would be slightly hesitant in suggesting it possessed any racist undertones, Tim-nice-but-dim, from Al-everyone's-pal.I think there is a slight tendency with Party members to be overly harsh in their criticisms of people who, for very good reasons, have never heard the Party's very unique case and we seem to expect that their socialist views spring fully developed like Minerva rather than being based on a learning curve and education.Our website is very extensive and despite being fairly easy to navigate is still daunting to discover all of our positions and learn the nuances of our principles so even expecting some effort by visitors on their own behalf to search out out interpretations of Marxism can be too demanding at times.Eventually, real differences do arise and are not resolved but i hope visitors do go away with an increased understanding of the SPGB and are able to recommend to others the comradely reception they receive on the forum and perhaps we may well have a heightened interaction of traffic on the forum.What is he calling everybody by his proper name, or his proper ID ? Why he has to call me sub-comandante Marcos ? He is only a fresh guy, because he does not know me and I do not know him, and even more I do not care either. Second I did not make the statement that he said that I made. He is lying and he is wrong..
MBellemare wrote:I agree with you David B. on most all you've stated. I think you see the concept of creative-power, and how it informs value, price and wage. And your right persuading people as to certain artificially fabricated price, value and wages is a major task of capitalists. Hence why controlling the means of both mental and physical production are so vital to capitalists. It seems to me, that we are normalized to pay certain prices and to conceive certain imagined values onto things. And if capitalism, was not the dominant political economic framework of society, we would cast-aside and/or discontinue the production of many capitalist commodities.
As for sub-comandante Marcos, and his statement that I am not using the term "value" correctly, I see value as arbitrary and as an artificial social construction. As a result, I am using the concept of "value" arbitrarily and as an artificial social construction. Just like Marx did, although he would never admit it, because he couched it in labor-time, quantifiable labor-time! Quantifiable labor-time, which is only validated when it is realized in circulation.Where did I said what you have said ?
Full-automation and Marx’s theory of valueIn 1898, a Russian economist, Vladimir Dmitriev, ‘demonstrated’ that the rate of profit would be positive in a fully automated economy.Capitalists can get “profit on capital without human labour … when all products are produced exclusively by the work of machines” (Economic Essays on Value, Competition and Utility, p. 214).In Dmitriev’s model economy, where machines make machines, the annual turnover is as follows:Annual input = 4 machinesAnnual output = 5 machinesInput price of machine = $100Output price of machine = $100Annual profit = $500 / $400, or 25%Consequently Dmitriev’s fully automated economy creates $100 annually out of thin air.In Reclaiming Marx’s Capital, Andrew Kliman points out that this “slipshod” argument absolutely convinced professional Marxist economists like Maurice Dobb, Meghnad Desai, Howard & King (History of Marxian Economics Vol 2)!Kliman exposes Dmitriev’s celebrated so-called ‘demolition’ of Marx’s theory of value as follows:As no labour is performed, there is no valuePrice of machine ≠ $100 (it rapidly falls to zero)Input price of machine = $0Output price of machine = $0Thus, profit = $0 / $0 (it rapidly becomes meaningless)Kliman points out that, while Dmitriev incorrectly asserts that non-Marxian machine ‘labour’ can produce value (as we have seen), he quite correctly asserts that non-Marxian animal ‘labour’ cannot produce value. Yet, both non-Marxian cases are entirely analogous.(‘Debunking’ economist Steve Keen snidely hints that non-Marxian animal labour, e.g. mules and donkeys, can produce value independently of the human labour-power of their tending. Such lack of clarity of thought is characteristic of the economists who would “improve” Marx!)I leave Andrew Kliman’s substantive criticism of Dmitriev and his long line of followers for another occasion.It merely remains for me to emphasise that Kliman’s exposure of Dmitriev simultaneously exposes Michel Luc Bellamare’s reproduction schema (above).
alanjjohnstone wrote:It appears to be more a play on a forum user's name drawing attention to what is perceived to be the tone of his responses by Michel, and i would be slightly hesitant in suggesting it possessed any racist undertones, Tim-nice-but-dim, from Al-everyone's-pal.So what your saying is that making a sterotypical reference to someone's perceived ethnicity, which is intended to demean or belittle that person, i.e. calling Marcos "Sub-Comandante", in an attempt to belittle him, does not have racist overtones?It is not merely a play on a person's name, it is not about Marcos's name it's about his perceived ethnicity and an assumption that the person's view is of less worth because of that ethnicity.And by the way, I'm not particualarly dim and I'm certainly not particularly nice.
I apologize Marcos, it was just being playful. I will not take such liberties again, it was too soon. Here is an excellent example why creative-power is functioning, and not strictly quantifiable labor-time measurements.Here are Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, straight-out of Empire. 1. "Marx's theory of value is really a theory of the measure of value" (p. 355 in Empire) 2. "In post-modern capitalism there is no longer a fixed scale that measures value…[nonetheless] value is still possible and ubiquitous". (p. 356 in Empire)3. "In Empire, the construction of value takes place beyond measure." (p. 356 in Empire)4. "Value is beyond measure". (p. 365 in Empire).I don't go as far as Negri and Hardt to state that the production of value is completely beyond quantification, I simply state that quantification of labor-time is now taking a back seat to other unquantifiable factors, which have more to do with creative-power, creativity, networking etc. etc. etc. then any quantifiable measurements of labor-time embodied in any commodity. That is, first and foremost, people must agree on the values of any commodity-exchange that will be exchanged before any exchange can take place. And this exchange is fundamentally based on conceptual-perception, it has relatively nothing to do with the labor-time embodied within a commodity, althrough at time and in certain spaces such measure can occur. Therefore, creative-power is more or less the vehicle of exchange, creative-power's influence within and on conceptual-perception. To return to Negri and Hardt, I ask why value is increasingly beyond measure? I have come to the conclusion that this is because creative-power is the fount of value, of measureable and immeasurable values alike. And most likely, it has always been that way, hence, why capitalism continues to persist, and will continue to persist, if marxists and others alike, do not broaden their scientific quantifiable analysis of capital into what really is going on such as all those other unquantifiable factors influencing price, value and wage.As for Andrew Kliman and is gang, although interesting, they appear to have not been influenced by the jump to post-modernity, post-fordism and post-industrialism etc. There still well-back in the by-gone era of modernity, fordism and industrialism, when most of us, live in a completely different age. Well, I'll let Thomas Kuhn say it and in a recent article of mine, I say it as well.Thomas Kuhn, in the structure of scientific revolutions (p. 150-152):"competing paradigms…[manifest]… different worlds. [Each is] looking at the world, and what they look at has not changed. But …they see different things, and they see them in different relations one to the other. Before they can hope to communicate fully, one…or the other…must experience a paradigm shift. It is a transition between incommensurables [and] the transition between competing paradigms cannot be made a step at a time, forced by logic. Like the gestalt switch, it must occur all at once (though not necessarily in an instant) or not at all…The transfer of allegiance from paradigm to paradigm is a conversion experience that cannot be forced. Conversion will occur a few at a time until, after the last holdouts have died, [and then] the whole [society]…will again be…under a single, but now a different, paradigm." The article: http://dissidentvoice.org/2017/03/historical-materialism-versus-historical-conceptualism/May be we are talking two different languages, from two different paradigms, Marcos, Robbo etc. However, I do think, there are pathways where we do agree. However, the concept of creative-power, versus the strict Marxist parameters of scientifically quantifiable labor-time, appears to be an point of conflict…. that may remain unresolved……. Michel Luc Bellemare
MBellemare wrote:May be we are talking two different languages, from two different paradigms, Marcos, Robbo etc. However, I do think, there are pathways where we do agree. However, the concept of creative-power, versus the strict Marxist parameters of scientifically quantifiable labor-time, appears to be an point of conflict…. that may remain unresolved……. Michel Luc BellemareExactly. You are taking a subjective view whilst we are looking at the issue of value from the objective. As a matter of fact you are using exactly the same argument has the green enconomists: https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2007/no-1237-september-2007/can-capitalism-ever-be-green
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.