Sympo
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DJP wrote:Sympo wrote:Did you mean to write "the employer will NOT be extracting surplus value"?
Nope.Employed workers in the non-productive sphere will still be being exploited by the employer in the same way as workers in the productive sphere. i.e surplus labour will be being extracted from them. It's just that all the "value" that is handled in the non-productive sphere is not newly made value, but value that has come from the productive sphere. So the surplus the capitalist takes is not newly created "surplus value", but value that has been pulled from other areas of the economy.We are only talking about capitalist relations here, and the distinction has no bearing on the social usefulness of the labour.Does putting it that way help?
No, sorry. I don't personally get how non-productive workers are exploited, perhaps it is impossible for anyone to explain this to me.What are some common non-productive jobs?
DJP wrote:"The employer will be extracting surplus value from the worker, but the origin of this value will be in the productive sphere of the economy."Did you mean to write "the employer will NOT be extracting surplus value"?"Make sense?"Nah, sorry, I still don't get it.
DJP wrote:"If they are employed by a capitalist then yes. The capitalist will still be syphoning off surplus value (or surplus labour – same thing), it's just that in terms of total value no new value has been created."What do you mean with "syphoning"?I don't understand. How can an individual be economically exploited if he's not creating surplus value for his employer?Marx's analysis takes place on the level of groups, i.e the capitalist class and the proletariat, rather than the level of individuals. The working class *as a whole* is exploitedOh yes definitely.I guess that the people who aren't economically exploited(unemployed, homeless people etc) would have a better life in Socialism than in Capitalism.
DJP wrote:Sympo wrote:And just to complicate things, not all labour in capitalism produces "value". Some sectors just redistribute value that has already been created in other sectors of the economy. See the thing and productive and non-productive labour.Are people who engage in non-productive labour exploited by capitalists?
gnome wrote:I would venture to suggest that the EC and the party are not necessarily the same – at least I sincerely hope not.As an outsider may I ask what EC stands for?
lindanesocialist wrote:"I dont like the caricatures myself; I used them because of fear of copyright or complaint."I see. I don't really know how copyright works. Perhaps it is alright to trace images, i.e. getting an image of David Cameron for example and drawing on a piece of paper that is on top of the photo? That way one makes an image that looks kind of realistic and not a caricature."The drums are not part of the song, they are war drums, symbolic of the class war that is raging, so I am surprised you find them 'wimpy'"I am referring to the music that was playing together with the drums. The drums are alright, though not combined with the music. If you are the musician behind that music I apologize for calling it wimpy, but that is how I feel about it."I deliberately made the alarm clock irritating and again sympolic of how workers cannot ignore the economic imprative of wage slavery."I see. Perhaps getting rid of the clock animation would be an improvement?"The party has no introductory video and a 'professional' production would cost thousands."I understand."Again thanks for your contribution. "No problem
ALB wrote:"The first point to note is that the Socialist Party does not lay down a 'correct' theory of 'truth'."Oh yes I understand that, I was just wondering about your personal opinion, what you believed to be "correct".
ALB wrote:So you didn't have a problem with the UK regional accent?It was an unusual accent to me but I could understand most of it, though it may have demanded a a bit more concentration than it would with a "generic" English accent.At 1:55 I couldn't quite understand what was being said. It sounded like "the claws is of fudd" to me.
This is regarding the video linked by gnome in this thread's last post.I'm not a member of the SPGB or anything but I'll contribute with a critique that hopefully will not offend the creator of the video. These are just my subjective opinions.I was slightly put off with the caricatures and drawings of people, like the one portraying David Cameron. I would prefer actual pictures of Cameron and other pro-capitalist politicians or capitalists.This might sound silly but I found the picture at 1:55 to be a little inappropriate. An actual picture of some capitalists would be better. The same goes with that cartoon at 1:04.After one minute of the video drums start playing. Is this a part of the song playing or is it a combination of two songs? Either way it sounded a little weird to me.The music is a little wimpy and sad in my opinion. Perhaps no music at all would be better?The sound of the alarm clock is unnecessary and loud.Again, no offence to anybody.
ALB wrote:"There is something out there that's independent of our minds, the "outside world" if you like, statements about which are either true or false according to a particular theory of truth. But, as statements are the product of minds, it can't be said "truth" or "falsity" are independent of minds."But it can be said that things exist without the knowledge of humans? Like, the planet Mars would still exist even if no human knew about it?
ALB wrote:"Actually, Sympo, while this theory, 'naive realism' if you like, is alright for everyday living, it's not really adequate. Our minds don't simply reflect or photograph the world out there 'as it really is'."It doesn't?But something is true, or false, independently from what we think of the subject, right?Am I misunderstanding what "correspondence theory of truth" is?
LBird wrote:"Your're quite correct, Sympo, that 'a lot of other people seem to believe in this [correspondence theory of truth]'.The simple reason for this belief is that it is one of the ruling class ideas, which Marx claims dominate the thinking of a class society."My point was that it isn't something that just Leninists, or Crypto-Leninists believe in."The key point for you, though, is that you have realised that different people have different ideas about what constitutes 'truth'. It's for you, now, to research and debate these 'theories of truth', and weigh them up, and decide for yourself which one says most to you about your life in this society."So you're not going to answer the questions I have asked you in my post?
LBird wrote:"We create 'truth' by social theory and practice, which is democratic productive activity."But most people can believe that the Earth is flat, it doesn't mean it's true, right? Have I misunderstood you?"Those who follow the 'materialist' ideology of Engels and Lenin employ a 'correspondence theory of truth'. I presume that you, too, employ this 'reflection' theory of the creation of knowledge."After reading what "correspondence theory of truth" means, then yes this is what I think is correct at the moment. It appears that it isn't just "those who follow the 'materialist' ideology of Engels and Lenin" that believe in this. A lot of other people seem to believe in this.Aren't knowledge and truth two different things?
