Alan Kerr
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@Steve-San FranciscoWhat do you think of this chapter?https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm
@LBirdIt’s good that you study Marx.I know that you do study as you found and thought that you solved this problem. Here it is.Mind over matter and matter over mind. If it is, ideas which change matter and matter which changes ideas then which is the first cause?It’s to your credit that you got so far as to find this problem. Not all students get so far. Your wrong solution was to unify mind and matter in one social production. We can do that but it is no solution to the problem.I hope that you do get the real solution now. The real solution was in your quotes from Marx. We cannot choose our means to produce since they are the result of previous production. So we get the order of steps. We cannot choose the order of those steps. From this, we get the matter over mind view of both Marx and Engels.We need you. Thank you for bringing your ideas to this debate.
@YMSWith Crusoe’s way (small or full-scale), I vote to air dry the wood. This will cut average labour hour cost.We need to make this more workable and better than the market.
@YMSFirst, you say that Crusoe’s way fails to take account. But Crusoe does take account.“His stock-book contains a list of the objects of utility that belong to him, of the operations necessary for their production; and lastly; of the labour time that definite quantities of those objects have, on an average, cost him.”(Marx)In the end, you ask why Crusoe takes account.For Crusoe, it’s because he’s British. But he also needs to stay alive.For us, it’s to see the real difference. 1) Producing for the market and 2) Producing simply for use.
Form F wrote:Alan Kerr wrote:@Form FThank you,Of course, the manager of the capitalist firm tries to make most profit in shortest time.This doesn't answer my question. How does the manager make the choice?
I’m no expert. But I would choose 1) on money cost and 2) on the way to turn capital over in shortest time. For a big firm I would get the best deal I could for kiln.
@YMSSorry but what’s Crusoe’s “invested” labour which he fails to take account of?http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA1.html#anchor_n38It’s not possible to argue that money and markets are actually better on Crusoe’s island. I mean how could money and markets work at all on Crusoe’s island?It’s only possible to argue that money and markets are actually better for one time and place but not for another time and place.If you like let’s discuss Karl Kaustky. He’s a good writer.But first let’s discuss small-scale.Should Crusoe waste his labour time?Why?
@MBellemareNo. In practice, ideas have never skipped material steps.The Soviet Union was 1) too late on the scene to skip simple manufacture 2) too early on the scene for socialist society.The simple question to you is how could humans build the first automated machine if not by previous methods?
@Form FThank you,Of course, the manager of the capitalist firm tries to make most profit in shortest time.For Socialist Production please see the answer that I gave at post #408
@LBirdAre you a robot?We ask you a question. We expect you to reply with some kind of answer. It’s how forums work.Not for the first time, here’s the question.How could you achieve automated factory stage first and simple manufacture stage after?We know how you always say oh but it's not a case of fixed 'stages', in which the 'former stage' must precede the 'latter stage'. Yes, that’s the point of the question. Should we expect the answer soon?If you really cannot separate things then the fault is yours.A real bird, because it’s not a robot, can think of a birdseed as a whole. But this does not stop the bird from also thinking of both the seed-shell and the seed-kernel. A bird can separate. Are you saying that you cannot?We could program a robot to answer a given question with: the whole universe is the universe. That answer would be true enough. The trouble is that it answers everything and nothing.Please answer the question.Please show that you’re not a robot.
@MBellemareMind over matter and matter over mind is the answer of Marx and Engels. But it’s not their full answer. It still leaves us facing both ways.Let’s cut to the chase.Same question to you.How could you achieve automated factory stage first and simple manufacture stage after?How could you do that not just in imagination but in practice?
Yes exactly. We need to know how you would change freely to using machines first and to hand crafts after.
@LBirdOf course, the problem is all yours Bird. This is if you try to explain anything. All you are saying is that ideas and matter affect each other. This is true. Who denies it? This is in both Marx and Engels. But in itself what can this explain in practice?See The Socialist Preamble. At first, the capitalist firm is small compared to the later capitalist firm. The former starts from simple manufacture. The latter is rather machine work. In both Marx and Engels, these steps have an order to them. In the same way, we leave the womb and learn to walk before we learn to run. But since ideas and matter just affect each other so you could reverse the order of these steps? Yes?Ok then maybe, you can explain in that case how you make the first machine?You could not make the first machine by machine not if it was the first one. But once you make the first machine by hand then you have simple manufacture step before machine step.That’s your problem Bird. We see no way out not for your way just to explain ideas by matter and vice versa matter by ideas. Do you?While you explain your way out of your problem, we also welcome criticism. So what problem did you find in The Socialist Preamble?Thank you for your link to letter from Marx. Of course, Marx also brings the exact same argument that I bring here against you.“Needless to say, man is not free to choose his productive forces—upon which his whole history is based—for every productive force is an acquired force, the product of previous activity.”(Taken from your link see #420)
@LBirdIn Marx and in fact automation for the capitalist comes earlier. Automation for the worker comes later.See The Socialist Preamble.In Marx and in fact this order of steps is not what we wish but rather what must be.So in Marx and in fact we get matter-over-mind.It is not, as you claim, mind-over-matter.
