DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
robbo203 wrote:At the end of the day I feel the argument boils down to axiomatic point that, by definition, machines dont perform abstract human labour and therefore cannot be said to generate value in these terms. . If you are going to criticise a theory you have to stick with its basic definitions and follow through the logic of the argument to its conclusion. You cannot surreptitiously import another definition of value into your own argument which is what Keen and co are effectively doing,
I think this is pretty much it. The examples you give change the meaning of "value" into something different to what it means in Marx's model.
Quote:if two tons of coal has 1000 hours of Socially Necessary Abstract Labour (SNAL) embodied in it then the maximum amount of SNAL hours that the two tons of can possibly transfer to each product, according to Marx, is dependent on the number of products produced over the time taken to use up the coal. So if the two tons of coal lasts for 1 year and is used to produce 50 products, the maximum value transferred from the coal to each product is 20 SNAL hours. But, contends Kitching, Marx is just inventing an example to fit the theory. There is no reason why the two tons of coal, by amplifying the productive power of the worker should not transfer, say, 2000 SNAL hours in total over the lifetime of the machine, meaning double the number of SNAL hours embodied in the two tons of coal itself. After all two tonnes of coal can burn for a longer amount of time than went into mining it. So why arbitrarily set the limit of SNAL hours it can transfer to just 1000?When laid out like this the mistake is more obvious, no?Machines, like coal, are something that are used up in the productive process. There's nothing arbitrary about saying that their value is transfered to the product as they are used up.
Does this Kitching guy also think that coal, warehouses or spanners also produce value? If not why not?I'm suggesting he has made an elemtary blunder…
Interesting, but socialism obviously isn'y going to be an endless series of referenda about how many tins of baked beans we produce.
This is the kind of psychological problems I had in mind..http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
These videos by Philosophy Tube about different aspects of nationalism might be interesting:https://youtu.be/JlYUmyPoL30https://youtu.be/E_JQd-EsDjQ
cyberrevolution1 wrote:i agree with you that the SPGB is a luxemburgist movementThe SPGB isn't really "Luxemburgist" either, but certainly closer to Luxemburg than Lenin.But yes, that's not what you were asking.I think we have to utilize every method we can, and also look into the psychology of how people make and change beliefs, I think this aspect has not adequately been thought about in the past.What do you think?
Your mistake is to think that the SPGB is a vangardist party. In fact we would agree with Rosa Luxemburg, and are against Lenin.How to propagate socialist ideas? I don't think there is one best answer or magic bullett.
Spanish version is now here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/espa%C3%B1ol/rusia-nunca-fue-socialista
Seems like the wrong question though. The purpose of capitalism is to reproduce and enlarge capital, and it seems to be doing that quite well. Stil I wonder if anyone did change their mind either way due to the debate, probably not I think these kind of changes happen much more slowly.
ALB wrote:Actually, when they get to Cabinet level it could be said that they are members of the capitalist class in that they do share in the surplus value extracted from the working classBut then wouldn't we have to say that about all those working in the state sector?
"Class interests" only make sense on the level of the class as a whole, not on the level of individuals.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:I think you are tool who was duped by John Gault. The government of the USA Psyops division did a similar trick with the media by promting the term "conspiracy theory" and associating it with crazy people.My favourite conspiracy theory is the one that the term "conspiracy theorist" was invented by the CIA. Of course it wasn't.. http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/nope_it_was_always_already_wrong
I think the purpose of the "off-topic" rule is not to make the forum into an equivalent of the word association game "just a minute", but to enable a means of preventing individuals and groups from turning every post into one about their pet topic, gripe or obsession. It's one thing for conversation to naturally progress, it's another to continually force the same topic upon people.
