[DJP]

Hopefully this article is of interest. It’s all about the difference between value and exchange value which often gets blurred in secondary texts.http://libcom.org/files/kliman.pdf

[DJP]

Also worth watching is ‘Das Mudpie’http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/law-of-value-3-das-mudpie/

[DJP]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

Value is not defined by the quantity of work (one could put a lot of work to destroy his house but it would be a negative value!), it is defined by how much importance an individual puts on a good to achieve his own preferences. Value is not intrinsic but subjective, that’s why people exchange things (work against money for instance)and how they get wealthier. To create wealth you need division of labour and voluntary exchanges.

In Marx, ‘Value’ relates to the amount of reproducable socially necessary labour-time embodied in the commodity. In this sense ‘value’ is not subjective but intrinsic. The trouble is, as with all words, in a different context it can mean a completely different thing.I recently read this blog post which I thought was quite good: http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/value-cant-be-created-in-exchange/Or you could watch this rather excellent video: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/video/marx-and-economics’The labour theory of value’ is something that really belongs to Smith and Ricardo, not Marx. 

[DJP]

 

robbo203 wrote:

There is a difference , as I am sure you realise, between an organisation whose purpose is specifically to combat religious ideas and a political party whose purpose is to help  transform society . If you are expecting the latter to depend on a majority becoming convinced atheists you will be waiting forever

The thing is our current policy does not stop people with a religious persuasion carrying on socialist activity outside the party, after all we have always claimed that it is not the SPGB itself that will bring about socialism but the working class as a whole.If any members have strong enough feelings about changing from the present set up they are free to raise the issue, but as I have not seen anything about religion on the last few years conference agendas it appears that there isn’t much enthusiasm to do so.So that’s pretty much end of story. I could go on, but really I’d be wasting time.

[DJP]

Robin, can you point me to the queue of religous belivers that are waiting to join the SPGB?I think you’ll find it only exists in your imagination.

[DJP]

http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/I may be playing devils advocate here but it seems to me that nuclear power is far from our biggest concern.

[DJP]

But CO2 and soot emissions from coal burning also seem fairly non-containable.To be honest I haven’t made my mind up on this one; I haven’t studied the subject well enough.

[DJP]

Are coal fired power stations, or hydro-electric dams safe?

[DJP]

Here’s a podcast from the ICC on their theory of the decadence of capitalismhttp://en.internationalism.org/podcast/201202/4692/capitalism-decadent

[DJP]

 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Banks Are Not MysticalOf related interest, a debate between NYT Paul Krugman and Australian economist Steve Keen and others on money/credit supply. Is it the Fed or is it the banks 

The answer to some extent depends on what measure of the money supply you are refering to.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supplySometimes people end up talking at cross purposes because they are referring to different things when they use the word ‘money’As far as I’ve got it worked out, the level of the broad money supply is determined by the amount of base money, the reserve rate and the state of the economic cycle.

[DJP]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

DJP I don’t think over production should be likened to a car accident. 

You’re misunderstanding me. I wasn’t saying that crises are like car crashes but using it as an illustration of what a tautology is.

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

I don’t think “anarchy of production” per se is the ultimate cause of crises. After  all,  unless you are an advocate of society-wide central planning in which the totality of inputs and outputs are consciously coordinated in an apriori sense within a single vast plan –  an absurd idea – then socialism too will be based too an an extent  on an “anarchic”, self regulating or spontaneously ordered system of production involving the mutual adjustment  of a multitude of plans to each other. Actually , there is no other way in which a large scale complex system of production can be run..

Nice point Robin. I guess you should the proviso ‘profit motive’ should be added to avoid this possible confusion.

[DJP]

Brian, and anyone else who didn’t go to Clapham, I’d love to hear what you think too!!

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

I can’t believe that any of these believe in the Parecon blueprint for an ideal society. It looks as if they’ve signed up to something without checking first.What do you think Stuart? Ask David Graeber?

I wouldn’t be that surprised! They must know what Parecon is

[DJP]

If time permits me I would like to contribute properly to this debate.But in the meantime:http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html

[Author]

Posts