temporal single system interpretation
- This topic has 45 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Once more i require a Marxism for dummies explanation, having read a WW article on TSSI
http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1083/revolutions-in-value-and-capitalist-crisis/
Why is this debate of significance and if it is important to understand why shouldn't there be a simple exposition for us dullards to understand.
I raised this matter beforehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/temporal-single-system-interpretation-marxs-economic-theory
Missed that, Vin, and having now read it, i'm really not the better for it.Heard of this debate ..the transformation problem and prices versus value but never really understood its importance. Its the significance of it that i'm puzzled by. I still need an idiots guide to the discussion…and the implications in practice for workers…how we apply the theory to our understanding of exploitation and extraaction of surplus value.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Heard of this debate ..the transformation problem and prices versus value but never really understood its importance. Its the significance of it that i'm puzzled by.If there's a "transformation problem" (i.e if "value" (the socialy neceassary labour time necessary to reproduce a commodity) can't be converted into "price" (i.e pounds, dollars etc) without causing contradictions) then Marx's theory of value is wrong because it is internally inconsistent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_problem
alanjjohnstone wrote:Heard of this debate ..the transformation problem and prices versus value but never really understood its importance. Its the significance of it that i'm puzzled by. I still need an idiots guide to the discussion…and the implications in practice for workers…how we apply the theory to our understanding of exploitation and extraaction of surplus value.The simplest explanation, alan, is that Marx's 'value' is qualitative (relational), whereas his bourgeois detractors regard science as quantitative (countable).The bourgeoisie pretended to remove consciousness from their understanding of reality, and thus pretended that all 'science' was mathematical. Thus, they argue, if 'value' can't be 'counted', it is not a 'scientific' concept.They are essentially saying that if love can't be counted, for example by looking at the price of a birthday card (which embodies the 'reality' of love), then love doesn't exist.So, alan, if you think that a mother paying £5 for their child's card loves that child more than another mother paying £1 for their child's card, then you will agree with the detractors of Marx's 'labour theory of value'.If you think that neither love nor value can be 'quantified', then you'll also think that the 'transformation problem' is a load of bollocks. And that there are other social reasons why one mother can afford a £5 card, whilst another can't, and in itself that 'fact' tells one nothing about their respective 'loving relationships' and their depth.
LBird wrote:The simplest explanation, alan, is that Marx's 'value' is qualitative (relational), whereas his bourgeois detractors regard science as quantitative (countable).This isn't an explanation of Marx's value theory at at all… Ignore.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:The simplest explanation, alan, is that Marx's 'value' is qualitative (relational), whereas his bourgeois detractors regard science as quantitative (countable).This isn't an explanation of Marx's value theory at at all… Ignore.
Beware, comrades!DJP is a 'materialist/physicalist', and wants to 'count' love.alan, if you want to decide between these explanations, you have to clarify your own standpoint.I suspect, though, that if you stick with 'materialism', you'll remain baffled – as is the rest of the working class.This 'mass bafflement' suits the 'materialists', because it prevents the proletariat from democratically controlling the means of production, and leaves its control in the hands of those who know what the 'price' of 'value' is.If we can vote on 'value' (ie. it's our conscious social estimate), then we can control it and change it.If 'value' is outside of consciousness (ie. it's 'material' and countable), then it can't be voted upon, and we can't change it by our own determination.
LBird wrote:If we can vote on 'value' (ie. it's our conscious social estimate), then we can control it and change it.If 'value' is outside of consciousness (ie. it's 'material' and countable), then it can't be voted upon, and we can't change it by our own determination.How will voting on exchange value help the working class?
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:If we can vote on 'value' (ie. it's our conscious social estimate), then we can control it and change it.If 'value' is outside of consciousness (ie. it's 'material' and countable), then it can't be voted upon, and we can't change it by our own determination.How will voting on exchange value help the working class?
Do we really have to have a discussion about the benefits of 'democracy' for the proletariat?I won't derail this thread, but simply say that I was answering alan's appeal for an understandable explanation.One's view of 'value' will be determined by one's view of "workers' democracy".
LBird wrote:Do we really have to have a discussion about the benefits of 'democracy' for the proletariat?I won't derail this thread, but simply say that I was answering alan's appeal for an understandable explanation.One's view of 'value' will be determined by one's view of "workers' democracy".Yes but how will 7 billion workers vote on the question of value in the workers democracy? What are the mechanisms involved and will postal votes count as well? What form will the question of value take upon which the workers are expected to vote? I fondly imagined that the "law of value" would disappear under communism anyway
robbo203 wrote:Yes but how will 7 billion workers vote on the question of value in the workers democracy? What are the mechanisms involved and will postal votes count as well? What form will the question of value take upon which the workers are expected to vote?You really detest any mention of "worker' democracy", don't you, robbo?
robbo203 wrote:I fondly imagined that the "law of value" would disappear under communism anywayExactly.
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:Yes but how will 7 billion workers vote on the question of value in the workers democracy? What are the mechanisms involved and will postal votes count as well? What form will the question of value take upon which the workers are expected to vote?You really detest any mention of "worker' democracy", don't you, robbo?
And you really detest robbo's logistical question which you are repeatedly asked and which you fail to answer…
gnome wrote:LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:Yes but how will 7 billion workers vote on the question of value in the workers democracy? What are the mechanisms involved and will postal votes count as well? What form will the question of value take upon which the workers are expected to vote?You really detest any mention of "worker' democracy", don't you, robbo?
And you really detest robbo's logistical question which you are repeatedly asked and which you fail to answer…
Apparently, you 'practical men' can't tell the difference between 'logistics' and 'philosophy' (that is, 'practice' and 'theory'). For you, 'practice' is the driver (as it is for the bourgeoisie), and not 'theory' (as for the revolutionary proletariat).The end result of Engelsian 'materialism' is a pragmatic dealing with 'hard facts', rather than a philosophy of 'change'.If one starts from the 'logistical impossibility' of workers' democracy, how can we workers 'change the world'?The answer is that 'practical men' don't wish to 'change the world', but simply want to 'deal with the reality' of the present one.You might as well join the Labour Party, and forget Marx's ideas regarding 'theory and practice' to change our world.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.