Alan Kerr
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thank you Prakash,
First, we agree that money cannot measure usefulness. Next, where is your proof? ALB, same question to you.
Hello Prakash,Like you, I'm not SPGB. And like you, I'm also reading the works of Marx. I'm sorry if I don't get to every one of your points.It's true that money cannot measure use-value. That's not a fault in money. The fact is that no one can measure value when we look at value as just usefulness. To measure we just need to look at value another way. From Marx' book we find that Aristotle almost sees how to look. Aristotle considers the commodities 5 beds in exchange for 1 house. Aristotle sees that we must be able to make beds and house equal in kind. Only then, can we measure and compare. Does Aristotle believe then that money removes this difficulty? No, Aristotle does not. Aristotle already finds that money cannot measure use-value.Marx, in his book, quotes Aristotle where Aristotle finds that"5 beds=1 house (…)"is not to be distinguished from"5 beds=so much money. (…)"And how Aristotle finds that"It is, however, in reality, impossible (…), that such unlike things can be commensurable"—i.e., qualitatively equal. Such an equalisation can only be something foreign to their real nature, consequently only "a make-shift for practical purposes."But Marx goes on…"… What is that equal something, that common substance, which admits of the value of the beds being expressed by a house? Such a thing, in truth, cannot exist, says Aristotle. And why not? Compared with the beds, the house does represent something equal to them, in so far as it represents what is really equal, both in the beds and the house. And that is—human labour."(Marx)http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA1.html#I.I.76Prakash is Marx' point clear to you?In 5 beds = 1 house there the house represents the (human-labour) value of the beds. Or in 5 beds = so much money there it is the money which represents the (human-labour) value of the beds.It's true that money or prices cannot measure usefulness. As we see, Marx (and Aristotle) already knows that.And your other points:We have always been more or less quickly changing our way to produce and to exchange.Yes, ordinary economists do teach that the biologically top people rise to the top so that (so the argument goes) unequal class society is the natural way. That philosophy is all wrong. It is wrong but not wrong because money is just evil or fails to measure use-value. I do not wish to hog this discussion. Please ask the SPGB to use their SPGB Preamble, Object and Declaration of Principles to make clear, why we really change our way to produce and to exchange.Season's Greetings all and I'll return to view replies in a couple of weeks.
The same as you I see a need to help and make the world a better place for my class.The steps of capitalist ownership (small and big) and Socialist Production are not just arbitrary steps. There’s a pattern to find and discuss.This is of practical use to help make the world a better place.
@Steve-San FranciscoYou can call sticks which apes use to get bugs from holes as machines. Then you can call a motor sending power through transmitting mechanism to a needle able to make stitches as a tool. Then you can prove that the ape’s machine (stick) came long before the dressmaker’s tool (sewing machine). But all you are saying there is that you can reverse the names for things. I see no great problem there so long as your names are clear. The point remains. I mean can you show how an ape from your example could have made the thing for fast automatic stitching of dresses before discovering the stick?
But why didn’t you just say so in the first place?You are observing how capitalist ownership is a hindrance to production. How the small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist. How the big capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production.Perhaps Steve may still argue as if since this order of steps is also struggle so it is also just arbitrary.Workers like you and Steve should find ways to work together for the same Object.Workers like Steve are fighting for their claim that we have to do with a purely arbitrary any old order of steps.Workers like you are fighting for your view of how the order just seems to be arbitrary. How in the first place the order grows out of production.Now we clearly see your dance steps.
@Tim KilgallonAre you claiming as if producers in need will vote actually to hinder production?Why is that?The SPGB Object nowhere says if it may go in for good quality small-scale production.But what if it did say that?What difference would that make?It would still leave the whole order of social evolution as if just down to struggle and therefore just arbitrary.Are you claiming as if the order is just arbitrary?Have you thought how you might have made the very first machine if not by previous hand production?How then could you have arbitrarily made the first machine?We still find nothing arbitrary about the social order of the steps.Nor is the average price of a commodity just arbitrary.
@Vin1)Do you think that order of social evolution just the result of struggle and therefore just arbitrary?There you have the bones of the question.2)Do you think that commodity-price just the result of struggle and therefore just arbitrary?There you have the individual cell in the question. On this exact same topic, Marx speaks of both 1 and 2 – see Marx’ Wage Labour and Capital.Why not simply join in to also share what you think?
@Tim KilgallonYou can? You can show that things are just struggle and therefore arbitrary? Please begin on topic here in this thread. But for now, no we cannot.
@Tim KilgallonI discuss interpreting The SPGB Object as if we take The Socialist Preamble as read. I discussed that at all levels including Conference and ADM. I never discussed voting for it so that it holds any weight as part of the party case. I never saw any need.Can we realistically interpret the SPGB Object and Declaration of Principles apart from The Socialist Preamble?Take our topic here in this thread. Our topic here in this thread is change in the price of a commodity.Steve is the best one to say what Steve thinks.If I understand Steve, he says that we change by struggle. And he says that change is arbitrary.To Steve the order of social changes is arbitrary. And changes in the price of a commodity are also arbitrary to Steve I think.Can the SPGB realistically claim as if things are just struggle and therefore arbitrary? No. But then you know best what you think.Especially since Marx, we see our need to explain struggle also – hence The Socialist Preamble.
Tim KilgallonThank you, it seems that it is not just you. The Preamble to The SPGB Object came out of a discussion. It may have been 1993? Adam Buick says that there must be copy of a one page letter including The Preamble. You could ask your secretary. Here is thePreambleCapitalist 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.
Let’s try once more.Anyone is free to answer these questions about The Socialist Preamble. In The Preamble, there’s a first step that starts from small capitalist manufacturing firm.In the same Preamble, there’s a next step that starts from big capitalist firm with machines.Could we have reversed that simple order of steps?Steve in post #6 says“I guess I would say that the answer is YES, depending on your definitions and interpretations and NO depending on your definitions and interpretations.”(Post #6)Maybe only Steve knows just what he means by that. But no matter what Steve means this question is also to Steve. How could we make the very first machine? Of course, we could not make the very first machine by machine because it’s the first one. That would be a ridiculous answer. So how could we make it?
Thank you for answering and sorry post #3 should have read Yes, of course we’re both putting views. We should let the reader know here that we are neither of us SPGB. But this is a debate.The Socialist Preamble says“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 capitalistic enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production.”In The Socialist Preamble (and in fact) we can find 3 steps.1) Capitalist manufacture by hand2) Capitalist mass production with machines3) Socialist ProductionCould step 2 have come before step 1?How could step 2 come before step 1?
Since according to you2) Capitalist mass production with machinesCould have come before1) Capitalist manufacture by handHow could you do that?How in that case would you make the very first machine?You could not make it by machine as it was the first one.So how would you make it?
Yes, of course we’re both putting views. We should let the reader know here that we are neither of us SPGB. But this is a debate.The Socialist Preamble says1) Capitalist ownership is a hindrance to production.2) The small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist.3) The big capitalistic enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production.So far, we have 3 steps1) Capitalist manufacture by hand2) Capitalist mass production with machines3) Socialist ProductionCould step 2 have come before step 1?How could step 2 come before step 1?
