temporal single system interpretation

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

The simplest explanation, alan, is that Marx's 'value' is qualitative (relational), whereas his bourgeois detractors regard science as quantitative (countable)..

 Here's another thing I cant quite figure out LBird.  So help me our here.  You say the question of value will be subject to a democratic vote in a workers democracy.  Isnt that a matter of counting heads – something that is quantifiable?

[robbo203]

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?

 Not at all   LBird.  Im just curious as to how you figure 7 billion workers are gonna vote on the question of value.  What does that mean in plain english? What is the motion(s) that they are supposed to be voting on? What are the procedures involved in collecting and processing the votes of 7 billion workers? And what is gonna happen when the result of the global vote is  eventually revealed – that is to say, what is the real world effect that this vote is goonna have? Why are you so reticent about providing a straight answer to all these fairly simple straightforward questions?Oh and while you are at it, could you please explain what is the point in voting on the question of value anyway.  You claim to be a Marxist.  Well I thought that that Marx was fairly clear on the matter – that socially necessary labour time was something that was only discoverable through the market in a post hoc sense. Do you envisage retaining the market in your workers democracy LBird?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

The simplest explanation, alan, is that Marx's 'value' is qualitative (relational), whereas his bourgeois detractors regard science as quantitative (countable)..

Here's another thing I cant quite figure out LBird.  So help me our here.  You say the question of value will be subject to a democratic vote in a workers democracy.  Isnt that a matter of counting heads – something that is quantifiable?

No, it's not 'a matter of counting heads' (a physical count of material beings), but 'a matter of counting minds/opinions' (which includes, obviously, consciousness). So, it's as much qualitative as quantitative. 'Counting heads' is merely quantitative. You might argue 'it's only a matter of words', but I think your choice of words is very revealing.If we remove 'consciousness' from our social estimation of 'what things are', we revert to pre-Marx 'materialism', which is precisely what Engels did do.That's why Marx was discussing critical theory and practice, focussed on the relationship between consciousness and being, and not on the supposed absence of consciousness from being, as is supposed by bourgeois science, which claims that 'knowledge' is eternal, fixed, non-social, non-relative, once-discovered-always-True, and so cannot be changed by us workers, in the future, in pursuit of our ideals, of the good life for all.In fact, even physics and maths are social creations, and do not 'reflect' the so-called 'material' world. They are 'ideal-material', as were Marx's views. Physics is just like sociology, and its methods and the knowledge it produces are just as class-based.Because our world is our creation, by social theory and practice, we can change it. Different classes produce different worlds, in physics and maths, history and sociology.To control the means of production, we have to control all of our social activities. There can't be an elite who claim to know, outside of our democratic control. That leads to 'private property' in both ideal and material.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

The simplest explanation, alan, is that Marx's 'value' is qualitative (relational), whereas his bourgeois detractors regard science as quantitative (countable)..

Here's another thing I cant quite figure out LBird.  So help me our here.  You say the question of value will be subject to a democratic vote in a workers democracy.  Isnt that a matter of counting heads – something that is quantifiable?

No, it's not 'a matter of counting heads' (a physical count of material beings), but 'a matter of counting minds/opinions' (which includes, obviously, consciousness). So, it's as much qualitative as quantitative. 'Counting heads' is merely quantitative. You might argue 'it's only a matter of words', but I think your choice of words is very revealing.

 You are missing the point arent you? Its still a matter of counting – even by your own admission – and so therefore involves a quantitative aspect as well.  I mean how can you exercise democracy without such  quantitative "counting"? How would you know what was the majority position and what was the minority position without "counting"?  The idea is absurd. That aside you have still not answered my main point LBird.  Why in a communist society would workers want to vote on the question of value at all?  Value as I tried to explain, pertains only to a system of commodity production.  Communists advocate a society without commodity prduction yet here you are arguing that value is something that will be a question to be voted upon in a communist society. You clearly do not understand Marxism if you think that law of value will apply to such a society.

LBird wrote:

To control the means of production, we have to control all of our social activities. There can't be an elite who claim to know, outside of our democratic control. That leads to 'private property' in both ideal and material.

 There are two different responses to this claim of yours LBird Firstly, your postion is far too black of white. We either have to control all our social acitivites or an elite will control them, according to you.  I take a quite different position to your control freakery .  That there will be a huge chunk of our social acitivites that will not need to be subject to any control at all but will be spontaneously orderedSecondly who is the "we" in "we have to control all our social activities".  Are the citizens of Greenwich in communist New York going to have the right to determine where the citizens of Barnet in communist London want to locate their spanking new community centre in a future communist society? If so can you explain how this is going to be done in practice.  If not , then this would mean that some of us would control some social activities relevant to us while others would control other activities relevant to them so that there would be a spatial division in  decisionmaking.This, too, undercuts your simplistic black-or-white representation of democratic control in a communist society

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

You are missing the point arent you? Its still a matter of counting – even by your own admission – and so therefore involves a quantitative aspect as well.  I mean how can you exercise democracy without such  quantitative "counting"?

Y'know, sometimes I wonder at the childishness of all this.I say 'theory and practice' – the materialists say 'what about practice, LBird'.I say 'subject and object' – the materialists say 'what about object, LBird'.I say 'ideal and material' – the materialists say 'what about material, LBird'.I say 'mind and matter' – the materialists say 'what about matter, LBird'.I say 'consciousness and being' – the materialists say 'what about being, LBird'.I say 'quality and quantity' – the materialists say 'what about quantity, LBird'.I just know that if I said that 'I love cheese and onion crisps', the materialists would complain about my hatred of onion.I have to believe that you're all doing this on purpose, because the alternative is that 'materialists can't read'. It's so circular and depressing – we never take the discussion forward.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

You are missing the point arent you? Its still a matter of counting – even by your own admission – and so therefore involves a quantitative aspect as well.  I mean how can you exercise democracy without such  quantitative "counting"?

Y'know, sometimes I wonder at the childishness of all this.I say 'theory and practice' – the materialists say 'what about practice, LBird'.I say 'subject and object' – the materialists say 'what about object, LBird'.I say 'ideal and material' – the materialists say 'what about material, LBird'.I say 'mind and matter' – the materialists say 'what about matter, LBird'.I say 'consciousness and being' – the materialists say 'what about being, LBird'.I say 'quality and quantity' – the materialists say 'what about quantity, LBird'.I just know that if I said that 'I love cheese and onion crisps', the materialists would complain about my hatred of onion.I have to believe that you're all doing this on purpose, because the alternative is that 'materialists can't read'. It's so circular and depressing – we never take the discussion forward.

 Well you started it all off by your assertion that it is "not a matter of counting heads" when you could have very easily said it is "not ONLY a matter of counting heads" Clearly you do now acknowlege that counting heads does matter.  Good.  So  now can we move on to the main points which are 1.  How will 7 billion workers be expected to vote on the question of value in the workers democracy?  What are the mechanisms and procedures involved in a global vote of this kind? What form will the question of value take upon which the workers are expected to vote?and2, Why do you consider that the law of value will continue to apply in a communist society thus requiring the workers to vote upon its application when such a law is only applicable to a commodity producing society?Please do not try to divert attention yet again from these questions otherwise we will be compelled to conclude that what lies behind your assertions is just a whole lot of hot air signifiying nothing of substance whatsoever

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Please do not try to divert attention yet again from these questions otherwise we will be compelled to conclude that what lies behind your assertions is just a whole lot of hot air signifiying nothing of substance whatsoever

The materialists, including you robbo, have already 'concluded' that there is 'nothing of substance' to 'ideas'.That's the whole point of Engels' 'materialism'.The bourgeoisie removed 'consciousness' from its considerations of 'nature/being', to reflect their removal of 'society' from 'property'.They supposedly 'discover' an 'external static reality', whereas Marx argued for the 'changing' of a 'malleable relationship between consciousness and being'.I'll stick with Marx's dynamic 'hot air'; you stick with Engels' stationary 'cold matter'.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Please do not try to divert attention yet again from these questions otherwise we will be compelled to conclude that what lies behind your assertions is just a whole lot of hot air signifiying nothing of substance whatsoever

I'll stick with Marx's dynamic 'hot air'; you stick with Engels' stationary 'cold matter'.

Actually you'll just stick with LBird's 'wind and piss' …

[alanjjohnstone]

I don't think these exchanges make it any easier for me to understand Marx, the transformation problem and TSSI. As we have always argued and LBird too, our theory isn't too complicated and all workers should be able to understand it. When they don't it is often the communicators failure.  I wish i never asked the question now

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Please do not try to divert attention yet again from these questions otherwise we will be compelled to conclude that what lies behind your assertions is just a whole lot of hot air signifiying nothing of substance whatsoever

I'll stick with Marx's dynamic 'hot air'; you stick with Engels' stationary 'cold matter'.

Actually you'll just stick with LBird's 'wind and piss' …

You wouldn't know what I'm saying, gnome, because you've never read Marx or Engels.If you had, the differences between them, and the impossibility of Engels' 'materialism' being the philosophical basis of workers' power, the changing of circumstances to suit the revolutionary proletariat, would be obvious to you.You just continue to add nothing whatsoever to this discussion – 'empty vessels', and all that.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I don't think these exchanges make it any easier for me to understand Marx, the transformation problem and TSSI. As we have always argued and LBird too, our theory isn't too complicated and all workers should be able to understand it. When they don't it is often the communicators failure.  I wish i never asked the question now

That's a shame, alan.My initial response was tailored to your (self-admitted) lack of awareness of these issues.I've tried to 'communicate', but you haven't reciprocated. Discussion requires a dialogue.So, the 'failure' is not simply the 'communicators', but also your failure to 'reciprocate'.We all share the blame for 'failure'.But, at least mine is a 'failure of trying'… an active failure, not a passive one.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Please do not try to divert attention yet again from these questions otherwise we will be compelled to conclude that what lies behind your assertions is just a whole lot of hot air signifiying nothing of substance whatsoever

The materialists, including you robbo, have already 'concluded' that there is 'nothing of substance' to 'ideas'.That's the whole point of Engels' 'materialism'.The bourgeoisie removed 'consciousness' from its considerations of 'nature/being', to reflect their removal of 'society' from 'property'.They supposedly 'discover' an 'external static reality', whereas Marx argued for the 'changing' of a 'malleable relationship between consciousness and being'.I'll stick with Marx's dynamic 'hot air'; you stick with Engels' stationary 'cold matter'.

 No, LBird, there  nothing of substance to YOUR ideas, not "ideas" as such you numbskull ! In particular your totalistic idea of the global workforce  democratically controlling every aspect of world production which is a breathtakingly stupid idea.  And if you cant see that by now then I have no hope for you. Strangely enough , though you would not have noticed it, so obsessed are you with presenting an utterly distorted picture of what other people are saying in order to give yourself a leg up, I have actually been no less critical of mechanical materialism and postivisim as you have been.  But you have conveniently forgotten all that havent you? Always always always  -you conveniently find  some way of evading having to the answer the simple straightforward questions I asked of you in my previous post.  Always!  You are intellectually dishonest  and devious  LBird.  I really cannot be bothered to take you seriously anymore

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

…LBird.  I really cannot be bothered to take you seriously anymore

Suits me, robbo, Bye, bye.I can turn my attention to those who do take these issues, that I raise, seriously.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I don't think these exchanges make it any easier for me to understand Marx, the transformation problem and TSSI. As we have always argued and LBird too, our theory isn't too complicated and all workers should be able to understand it. When they don't it is often the communicators failure.  I wish i never asked the question now

I thought that you would have had a read of DJP's link to TSSI on wikipedia.In that text, it is clear that the status of 'Marxism' is in dispute, with differing 'Marxists' offering differing opinions on TSSI.It seems to me, that to have some understanding of that dispute, requires some understanding of what might be the root of these inter-'Marxist' disagreements.I'll put my money on it being between Engelsian 'materialists' and those who take inspiration from Marx and the 'relationship' between 'ideal and material'.If you are starting from the assumption that 'Marxism is Marxism', and that you simply want 'The Truth' of TSSI, I think that this is a mistake.There is an interesting and informative discussion waiting to be had, from which I'll learn much, too.

[Author]

Posts