Originator of a THESIS on money’s incapacity
- This topic has 426 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
To Alan & ALB
'm glad that you've voiced your thoughts. I truly wish you'd throw as many questions as you please at me. I'm aware that the truth is not only something heartless and callous but invincible, inescapable, and irresistible as well. I'm also aware that it is through argumentation that we can reach the truth. And I'm always ready to welcome the truth. I wish you would not quit before we've seen this debate through.ALB wrote:And the winner is ….. Aristotle (350 BC)He is the real winner
Prakash thank you, and your proof is not proof. See your reply (#29).Otherwise, I should claim to be the first to prove that air is more than one kind of gas.My proof would be that this kind of gas does not have the same name as that kind. But that would not be proof. Proof is more than names.Why not rather set out from Aristotle's point? See my reply (#18). But then Aristotle's point is a starting-point only.
Alan Kerr wrote:Prakash thank you, and your proof is not proof. See your reply (#29).Otherwise, I should claim to be the first to prove that air is more than one kind of gas.My proof would be that this kind of gas does not have the same name as that kind. But that would not be proof. Proof is more than names.Why not rather set out from Aristotle's point? See my reply (#18). But then Aristotle's point is a starting-point only.In this forum and the WSM forum we always get some type of innovators and then we discover that they are just students
' … your proof is not proof. ' ( Alan Kerr's commen on 31 Dec 2017 ) Dear Alan, you seem to be dead certain that my ' proof is not proof ', but you've forgotten to state what led you to be so certain of it. I think you'd awake to your mistake if you just try to point to the fallacy of my argumentation. The line of reasoning I've employed to arrive at the conclusion ( the THESIS at issue ) starting from the definition of money ( the premise ) is the deductive one, and the method of deduction happens to be recognised as an infallible scientific method, as far as I know. And my work deserves credit on two counts. First off, it's the first work meant to present humanity with a proof of the THESIS ; second, the method of proving it is unique. None seem to be known to have thrown light, before me, on the very definition of money and thus enlightened humanity about what money cannot do. I don't think Aristotle had a clear concept of money— clear enough to be able to define it, just as a guy in the Dark Ages cannot have the concept that ' air is more than one kind of gas. ' And I think proving, for the first time, that air is a mixture of several gases and a non-gaseous stuff called moisture is surly a highly creditable achievement bacause not only does it call for a clear concept of distinctions between a gas and a non-gas, it also calls for a good knowledge of the gases present in the air and their physical and chemical properties. The proof and comprehension of the THESIS at issue calls for, as I see it, the knowledge of the definition of money, a clear concept of the use-value ( worth ) and the exchange-value ( value ) and basic distinctions between them, and a clear concept of science and scientific methods, as well. Because it appears to be ' not proof ' to you, it doesn't follow that it's ' not proof '. You have to prove it. Just try to find the fallacy of my work, will you ? ' By definition, money is meant to serve fundamentally a dual purpose : ( 1 ) to measure the value of a commodity and … ' There's nothing wrong with it, is there ? Since money is meant fundamentally to measure the value ( i.e. exchange-value ), not the use-value which is essentially distinct from the former, it follows that money cannot give a measure of the use-value of a commodity ( or, if put with different wording, ' the monetary value of an object does not measure its " intrinsic worth ", usually called its utility ' ). The argument is as simple as the arithmetic logic that two and two makes four, RIGHT ? could you present humanity with a better or not-better proof of this THESIS ? I really don't know of another proof of it and would be glad to be acquainted with it. Any more questions ? I invite questions. I also think I deserve credit for having enlightened humanity about the grave SIGNIFICANCE the THESIS carries, the immediate corollary to it, namely, the fact that economic inequality doesn't owe its origin to QUALITATIVE distinctions between humans, between a Nobelist and a palmist or between the work done by a doctor and that by an actor, and thus economic inequality happens to be at the root of the GREATEST and gravest social INJUSTICE, i.e. the most disgusting, distressing, and disgraceful fact that the fact that in a class-redden society, the poor and penniless millions, the 99%, were all BORN poor and penniless is NOT attributable to any faults or failings of theirs just as the fact that the rich and the super-rich, the 1%, were all BORN rich and super-rich to exploit the BORN poor and penniless and thus keep growing RICHER and RICHER is NOT attributable to any great acts or commendable achievements of theirs, OK ? I've got the impression that the THESIS and its SIGNIFICANCE together constitute the strongest defence of the classless communistic order.
Prakash we also welcome your arguments.We must hold the laws of economics to the same standard of proof as the laws of chemistry.I've said how one gas has one name and another gas has another name. If that proves how air is more than one gas then this must revolutionize everything. Next, make me famous. Then, I'll accept your economic thesis.But how will the name of a gas show, for example, why one kind of gas must change into another? And how will the name for money show why one kind of inequality must change into another?I want to go on but not to hog the discussion. Who here will explain, in short and broadly, why one kind of inequality must change into another?
robbo203 wrote:Prakash RP wrote:Money canNOT measure the WORTH of a commodity. By definition, money is meant to serve fundamentally a dual purpose : ( 1 ) to measure the value of a commodity and ( 2 ) to act as the medium of exchange of commodities. But which value ? Viewed from …Prakash, I am not quite sure what you are saying here. The idea that money cannot measure the worth – or use value – of a commodity was well understood by Marx who pointed out that while"nothing can have value, without being an object of utility” it is neverthless the case that "use-value as such lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy” and that, logically speaking, labour had to be the primary measure of value under capitalism. After all, it is labour that is the one thing common to all commodities whereas the use values of commodities are not only are qualitatively different and incommesurable but differ from person to person and from time to time. Its just another way of saying what you are saying above, I think (Marx K, 1859, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.)
Marx understood many and many things that are taking place in capitalism. Like someone wrote: Capital is more actual today than in prior epochs
Alan Kerr wrote:Prakash we also welcome your arguments.We must hold the laws of economics to the same standard of proof as the laws of chemistry.I've said how one gas has one name and another gas has another name. If that proves how air is more than one gas then this must revolutionize everything. Next, make me famous. Then, I'll accept your economic thesis.But how will the name of a gas show, for example, why one kind of gas must change into another? And how will the name for money show why one kind of inequality must change into another?I want to go on but not to hog the discussion. Who here will explain, in short, and broadly, why one kind of inequality must change into another?We must understand the real economic laws of this society in the same way that Marx understood them and explained them on Capital. We can not take capitalism to a beauty parlour. There is not an individual able to change its logic and economical laws
Marcos you say"We must understand the real economic laws of this society in the same way that Marx understood them and explained them on Capital. We can not take capitalism to a beauty parlour. There is not an individual able to change its logic and economical laws" Your reply (#38)But economic laws do change. In capitalist society, commodities sell on the average at their prices of production. That's the logic and economic laws. But small capitalist production begins with commodities selling on the average at their values. That's also the logic and economic laws. To understand economic laws is to explain why they must change. Will you now disprove the changes?Or, for instance, your Preamble to your SPGB Object says"Preamble"Capitalist ownership is a hindrance to production."The small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist.The big capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production."Note there that the Preamble says"… The small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist…"It is there that the big capitalist enterprise is the step forwards compared to that of the small capitalist. It is there that we must change but from one kind of inequality to another. It's the logic and economic laws. Will you disprove the change? Will you prove why this change cannot change? This is not all. Note how the Preamble goes on"… The big capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production…"Now note how it is Socialist Production which is the step forwards. We must change from capitalist to Socialist Production. That is the SPGB Object. It's also the logic and economic laws. Now will you prove why this change also cannot change? You are SPGB. Come on! Please explain Marcos.
Alan Kerr wrote:Marcos you say"We must understand the real economic laws of this society in the same way that Marx understood them and explained them on Capital. We can not take capitalism to a beauty parlour. There is not an individual able to change its logic and economical laws" Your reply (#38)But economic laws do change. In capitalist society, commodities sell on the average at their prices of production. That's the logic and economic laws. But small capitalist production begins with commodities selling on the average at their values. That's also the logic and economic laws. To understand economic laws is to explain why they must change. Will you now disprove the changes?Or, for instance, your Preamble to your SPGB Object says"Preamble"Capitalist ownership is a hindrance to production."The small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist.The big capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production."Note there that the Preamble says"… The small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist…"It is there that the big capitalist enterprise is the step forwards compared to that of the small capitalist. It is there that we must change but from one kind of inequality to another. It's the logic and economic laws. Will you disprove the change? Will you prove why this change cannot change? This is not all. Note how the Preamble goes on"… The big capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production…"Now note how it is Socialist Production which is the step forwards. We must change from capitalist to Socialist Production. That is the SPGB Object. It's also the logic and economic laws. Now will you prove why this change also cannot change? You are SPGB. Come on! Please explain Marcos.A small enterprise is not an individual. If an individual is able to make economic changes we can also say that president and politicians are able to change the economic base of the capitalist society. The only ones who can make real economic changes in this society are the working class as a whole. The best example that we have is the case of Barrack Obama and Donald Trump they have been forced to go along with the logic of capitalism, instead of them making any changes on the economic base of this society, the economic base changed them
[ Response to Alan Kerr's comment dated 02 Jan 2018 ] Dear Alan, I've taken cognisance of your points and am thinking over them. Nevertheless, I'd like you to consider the following points.My work is meant to acquaint people with the definition of money and basic distinctions between the value and the use-value of commodities and thus help them comprehend the truth of the thesis in question. The fact that you're convinced of the truth of the thesis and the fact that you haven't detected any logical fallacy in my work give me the impression that it has achieved what it's aimed at. Nevertheless, I appreciate your difficulty in accepting it as a proof of the thesis. Frankly speaking, I'm not a hundred percent certain about the correctness of my assertion in this regard. Notwithstanding this, I think we can agree on four points : ( 1 ) it follows from the very definition of money that money is not meant to measure the use-value ( worth ) of a commodity ; ( 2 ) we're aware of no reasons for claiming that money can measure the use-value of commodities ; ( 3 ) we're not aware either of any reason to believe that the use-value of a commodity is measurable in money ; ( 4 ) There exists no criterion for measuring the use-value in money. What conclusion would you draw, if you must draw one, from these four points ?
Marcos sorry I thought that you were arguing with me. Thank you for your help. First, we agree that the president does not act just as an individual. He has to do with Political Parties. And Parties have to do with Economic Classes. The president is a big capitalist. Economic classes struggle one against another. By an economic class struggle we mean that one class has an interest in their way to stay alive even when a hindrance to production. Another class has an interest in a step forwards to the new way to produce wealth. That is economic law. We see this in The SPGB Preamble…In a similar way, we find that it's not the law in the legal sense of the president's laws that explain why, in the air, one gas must turn into another gas. Nor is it the definition (or name) that explains why one gas must turn into another. So it must be the laws of chemistry.In an exchange of commodities, 5 beds = 1 house, it is not the president's laws that explain if a house measures the usefulness of the beds. Nor is it the definition of money that explains. In that exchange, there is no money for us to define. Nor can the definition of money explain why one kind of inequality must turn into another. So it must be the laws of economics.
I am assuming we are using utility, use value and worth interchangeablely? Which is fair enough. On the first page of capital we have; …The utility of a thing makes it a use value.But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity…its worth…. is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. ..its value. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm So then the worth of a commodity has got nothing to do with, or is independent of its value or the amount of labour time required to [re]produce its utility. Or if you like; the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. [There is a bit of albeit interesting logical pedantry here early on. Thus one chair which might be as useful as another type of chair so he doesn’t want to lock himself in yet into the idea that the labour time required to produce chair A is always the same as the labour time required to produce chair B until he has picked up and run with the socially necessary labour time thing.] The general idea with gold money value was that the gold money or money value does measure the labour time value of all commodities. Thus 1oz gold, or the gold money value, of say a tonne of coal does ‘measure’ the labour time value of a tonne of coal. Because it takes the same amount of labour time to produce both. Karl started from the empirical observation of people like Franklin, which in a way produced a ‘law’ which is; ….A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the universe….. to greek logic, or put the law on a logical footing. Whilst Aristotle started with the logic and tried to square it with empirical observation. Actually when you read Aristotle’s full thing rather than Karls synopsis Aristotle was very close to a labour theory of value. The logic is ancient Greek stuff, it is a mixture Aristotle, Euclid [maths stuff] and the first chemist Democritus; and you can take it or leave it even if still carries over into modern science and in particular chemistry. [There is a little bit a complication when it comes to equality and transformation.] The basic idea/logic is that when two things are ‘equal’, for whatever reason and the reason isn’t important at first. There must be something about them that is the same or identical in the fullest meaning of the term. Thus from Karl again falling back on this logic; ….., 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….[Euclid shit] These Greeks were not stupid they knew the earth was a sphere because you could see further the higher up you went and had calculated its size fairly accurately. They actually speculated that it might be spinning around rather than the sun going around the earth. But that meant that it must be rotating at about 1000 miles an hour which it does ish. They thus dismissed that idea because it would mean that it would be very windy all the time in one direction. Aristotle also dismissed the idea that the earth was moving through space due to the absence of an observable parallax effect when looking at the stars. The idea that they could be so far away to observe, or as far away as they actually where, never occurred to them, or was unthinkable.they observed the parralax affect with stars using better equipment and stuff and understanding how much the earth was moving around [the sun] around 1800. but it only works even then and now with stars about 10 light years away, ish.Karl did democritus as part of his pHD theisis and he was a great one for the idea that everything is made up from and different arrangements of the 'same' basic components of some kind of mechano set or lego box.The labour theory of value is that there is only one kind of lego brick re commodities, human effort or "abstract labour" and everything in the world of commodities are mere superficiallly different arangements of it.us scientist don't like philosopy much, but i have gone back to it as are other theoretical physicist etc in general.But we have found them rather than them us.Went to a lecture and answer and discussion by a proffessor in quantum physics and they also knew about Plato's shadows in the cave thing.you can actually measure the usefullness of a 'commodity' but only with a 'commensurable' usefullness of another.Or like for like.It is basically what early marginal utility people did who were better than than the modern ones.I think Karl thought he laughed it off with his crusoe thing.but that seems to have flown straight over the head of most modern Marxist!i could continue to prattle on about the so called wages of supervision in volume 3 and differentials between the price of concrete labour power re indian peasants, computer programmers and indian peasants becomming computer programmersI
Alan Kerr wrote:Marcos sorry I thought that you were arguing with me. Thank you for your help. First, we agree that the president does not act just as an individual. He has to do with Political Parties. And Parties have to do with Economic Classes. The president is a big capitalist. Economic classes struggle one against another. By an economic class struggle, we mean that one class has an interest in their way to stay alive even when a hindrance to production. Another class has an interest in a step forward to the new way to produce wealth. That is economic law. We see this in The SPGB Preamble…In a similar way, we find that it's not the law in the legal sense of the president's laws that explain why, in the air, one gas must turn into another gas. Nor is it the definition (or name) that explains why one gas must turn into another. So it must be the laws of chemistry.In an exchange of commodities, 5 beds = 1 house, it is not the president's laws that explain if a house measures the usefulness of the beds. Nor is it the definition of money that explains. In that exchange, there is no money for us to define. Nor can the definition of money explain why one kind of inequality must turn into another. So it must be the laws of economics.When I am mistaken I do recognize my mistakes, but when I am correct I always stick to my gun. I was not arguing with you, my point is that most Marx's innovators are just a bunch of distorted, and they think that an individual will change the world, not even Marx dares to do that, he gave all the merits to the working class.They come to this forum like teachers trying to give lectures to the Socialist Party but then they understand that they are just students of socialism and that the SPGB has been teaching socialism for more than 100 years
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.