What is value?
- This topic has 131 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
T o be uncharitable about these discussions, workers' democracy implies to me that i can safely leave to others to argue the number of angels dancing on a pin-head because in the bigger picture, the threads i have been referring to are not going to be contributing to any social change. It simply isn't engaging the majority, its ideas aren't relating to their reality. YMS is a member of the electoral committee of the SPGB and i simply have not seen anything produced in all these exchanges that i can think of as a positive step to adapt as a general approach to include in our interacting with our intended audience in our daily politics. ( i say that just to get him and others to actually bring such to the forefront iin the discussion)Yourself by your own account are even more isolated…no-one to even call a comrade-in-arms and i consider that unfortunate. I also think it is misguided. You have become a party of one and i invite you to become one of the 300 Small and limited as it is, and despite the occasional rancorous debates, we have demonstrated the inclusiveness of our politics and once more despite your assertions that there is too much of a separation and difference in our ideas, something i think you and (maybe one or two of your adversaries) highly exagerrate and it is little different from the responses i get on Libcom when i raise the issue that we can cooperate more once we understand that our positional differences need not stand us apart. Too many of our similarities are indeed basic to all our politics, and where we disagree is secondary. (i'm no proposing a false unity built upon false premises before anyone suggests i am…) It is a matter of distinquishing what is essential, what is crucial, what is our essence…then reaching an accommodation on where we diverge. I have always been accused of being utopian…and perhaps such a mission is, but if one-to-one individual face-to face i can call another comrade, then surely some organisations can recognise our respective organisations can still see and treat each other as unique parts of the indivisible whole. Stop being a diva and prima donna, Lbird. It's cold out there. Come inside, sit yerself down, take off your boots, and warm yourself with the glow of cameraderie and solidarity. No-one i think is suggesting your views should be silenced even if membership may require you to temper you exhortations that some are not socialists/communists because they understand some philosophical point diferently from yourself. And you have to tolerate other members like myself who lack adequate learning to understand some things. http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/membership-applicationhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/party-rules-amended-conference-2009What you scared of…agreement?
SP,no-one, AFAIK think's you're a shit stirrer, your question was met with an answer, is all. The minimum people need to understand is that a pile of money ina field doesn't grow like a plant. Only human effort increases wealth, and the only way that someone can be relatively wealthy, that is having more wealth than can be produced by a single person working, is by taking control of the effort of others. A lump of metal and a bit of wood are worth as much as a lump of metal and a stick of wood, but turn them into a hammer, and they are worth more than the metal and wood together. That addition is effort. It may or may not sell at that value: it might be a rip-off or a bargain, but we know if it is either that it has some worth other than what it sells for.A myth may help. Imagine a society in which everyone has a similar set of skills. They use these skills to make/find goods A to E. Not everyone makes these objects, some make A and exchange with others, somoe make B, etc. Each though could make the other objects, and they know both how much effort it would take them to make them and how long otehrs would take. When exchanging, they take great care not to swap goods for objects that it would take less effort to get themselves than they have invested in the the thing they are swapping. Some people may have to put in more energy, or find some tasks harder in their minds and have to concentrate harder, but the others can't se that, all they can see is a rough output each per day.So, the people know that in terms of exchange A>B>C>D>E : that is, A is worth more than B, etc. As with our chess pawns, since E is the least valuable, it becomes possible to express these relative worths in terms of E, i.e. E=1. So D=2E, C=3.5E, etc. so to get a fair swap of D's and C's you'd need to swap 7 D for 4 C's (or fractions to that equivilant). Now, a certain number of hours of effort go into an E, but that doesn't enter into the bargain directly, goods are evauated in terms of the number of E's they are worth, and the relative human effort behind an E remains hidden, but it is there.
alanjjohnstone wrote:T o be uncharitable about these discussions, workers' democracy implies to me that i can safely leave to others to argue the number of angels dancing on a pin-head because in the bigger picture, the threads i have been referring to are not going to be contributing to any social change. It simply isn't engaging the majority, its ideas aren't relating to their reality.But, is 'value' similar to 'angels on a pinhead'?In fact, I agree with you that it is, for the vast majority of workers, including yourself.But, I draw the conclusion that 'value', being so important a concept, must be explained properly, and the reason that you and many others draw the 'angels/pinhead' conclusion, is that it isn't being explained properly.To me, talking of 'value as a social acid', and then illustrating the socio-economic effects of that 'acid' by showing workers pictures of contemporary Detroit, works well as an explanation. Detroit is clearly being eaten away, decomposing before our very eyes, as if it had been doused with a 'social acid'. Closed factories, boarded-up houses, empty streets… Yeah, Detroit has been exposed to the deleterious effects of 'value', and it's a 'social chemical' coming your way! How hard is that for workers to grasp, and thus recognise the future dangers to them of market, money and capitalism, which produce 'value'?
ajj wrote:Stop being a diva and prima donna, Lbird. It's cold out there. Come inside, sit yerself down, take off your boots, and warm yourself with the glow of cameraderie and solidarity. No-one i think is suggesting your views should be silenced even if membership may require you to temper you exhortations…Well, I'm still here, posting and arguing, aren't I?Though, I think the picture of 'the glow of cameraderie' is a little overplayed.Quite frankly, I think there are now 'comrades' on several sites who would quite happily put their political principles into temporary abeyance, and join a 'popular front' with the Nazis to kick f…k out of me.To be serious, I put most of these problems down to the issue of 'materialism'. A few years ago, I was unsure of the depths of the problem, and thought it could be smoothed over by comradely debate, but I'm now totally convinced, thanks to the internet, that 'materialism' is politically dangerous for the proletariat.In fact, I'm not sure of which is the most immediate danger to workers, 'value' or 'materialism'…Both Detroit and so-called "workers' parties" across the world are in a similar state of disarray…
YMS wrote:A myth may help. Imagine a society in which everyone has a similar set of skills. They use these skills to make/find goods A to E. Not everyone makes these objects, some make A and exchange with others, somoe make B, etc. Each though could make the other objects, and they know both how much effort it would take them to make them and how long otehrs would take. When exchanging, they take great care not to swap goods for objects that it would take less effort to get themselves than they have invested in the the thing they are swapping.Some people may have to put in more energy, or find some tasks harder in their minds and have to concentrate harder, but the others can't se that, all they can see is a rough output each per day.So, the people know that in terms of exchange A>B>C>D>E : that is, A is worth more than B, etc. As with our chess pawns, since E is the least valuable, it becomes possible to express these relative worths in terms of E, i.e. E=1. So D=2E, C=3.5E, etc. so to get a fair swap of D's and C's you'd need to swap 7 D for 4 C's (or fractions to that equivilant). Now, a certain number of hours of effort go into an E, but that doesn't enter into the bargain directly, goods are evauated in terms of the number of E's they are worth, and the relative human effort behind an E remains hidden, but it is there.Versus
LBird wrote:Value is a social acid, and it's dangerous to us workers – look at Detroit!I rest my case, alanjjohnstone.
Lbird,that doesn't explain value at all: it doesn't explain how value built a global spanning empire, how it created the factories and places we work in. It doesn't simply corrode.And if we're doing rough and ready one sentence definitions: value is the share of the total human effort of producing things for exchange that goes into producing a given good.
Alan It all comes back to a previous discussion on why we need socialism and what is the call for revolution based on. Karl Marx found that out and revealed it in his writings. If he hadn't, someone else would have. What is the quote 'if I have been able to see further than others it is only because I have stood on their shoulders' All history since the development of private property is a history of class struggle and socialism is the only way to free us from that.It's scientific basis (Ok LBird 'working class science' if you like) is historical materialism and marx' theory of valueIt cannot be based on morality, nor the dislike of starvation and war or simply because we don't like what we see. . Nor can it be bought about to save the planet. The world has alway had nasties in it. It can only come about when the working class decide to pursue its own economic interests and this requires an understanding of the wages system and how exploitation works. I'm afraid there is no short cut but I don't think we all need to digest the whole of 'Capital' I do not dismiss morality, I would just argue that you can't base the class struggle and socialism on it.
Just to add to my last post: How can we expect workers to abolish the wages system while they do not understand that the whole wages bill will always be restricted and forced down to or around the 'value' of labour power. (Much simplifation, I know)
YMS wrote:And if we're doing rough and ready one sentence definitions:Right, let's see what looks best, inscribed across our revolutionary banners:
Workers slogan 1, wrote:value is the share of the total human effort of producing things for exchange that goes into producing a given goodand,
Workers slogan 2, wrote:Remember Detroit comrades, and its destruction by 'Value'!Which one captures the political essence of a socio-economic description of 'value', which is most useful for helping the development of workers' consciousness of their real world?
Vin wrote:I'm afraid there is no short cut but I don't think we all need to digest the whole of 'Capital'I agree with you here, Vin.If by 'digest' you mean 'quote whole passages'.But there is a need for all workers to understand the whole of Capital.To me, the role of Communists is to help develop that understanding amongst workers, and I don't think that simply 'reading the text' (or even remembering huge chunks of it) fulfils that aim.Explanation is not repetition.
LBird,I hear the grinding sound of goalposts moving. Sloganising is different from explanation. The original question was 'How do we explain value?' Detroit does not explain value (and there are factors other than value involved, geographic, constitutional and cultural, I'd suggest, to Detroit's destruction)."Who benefits from our labour?" Is a good enough slogan. "The abolition of the wages system" is better.Or:
Young Master Smeet wrote:"Who benefits from our labour?" Is a good enough slogan. "The abolition of the wages system" is better.Amalgamate'Who benifits from the wages system'
error benefits
Great banners, YMS, where's ours?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.