[Sympo]

LBird wrote:

"You've quoted yourself, Sympo, in those two lines above."Which two lines? "'Objective truth' implies 'an elite who establish'."I wouldn't say so. What leads you to this conclusion?The world would exist even if I would not exist. Things exist in a physical sense even if there is no human that knows that it exists. I think there is a difference between "truth" and "what most people assume to be true". What we assume can change. Truth itself can not be affected by us, right? "If that wasn't your belief, you'd agree that 'objective truth' can be voted on."I don't understand. What is your definition of truth? How does our subjective views change whether or not something is true?If most people think elves exist, do they exist because most people think they do?I'm sorry if these questions are dumb but I'm confused by what you're writing.

[Sympo]

LBird wrote:

"The political problem is that 'materialists' argue, as does ALB, that 'truth' is 'out there', awaiting 'discovery' by a 'science' that has a 'special method' which allows an elite (and only an elite) to access that 'truth', which is thus, once discovered, an 'Eternal Truth'.  [edit – I've just seen that Sympo agrees with this belief]"Wait, what? When I have said that only an elite can establish truth? Could you quote me saying this? Do you not believe there is an objective truth? If most people believe in God, does that mean that he exists?

[Sympo]

ALB wrote:

"I'm not sure that C02 does damage the ozone layer, does it?"Nah I'm not sure, I just used it as an example."There is an individual here who argues that the proposition, eg, that "increasing C02 in the atmosphere does not contribute to global warming"  should be put to the vote and, if carried, it would be "true" that it didn't."Doesn't this imply that truth is relative? I personally don't think truth is relative, either something is correct or it isn't(and sometimes it is almost correct). If something you said turned out to be not true, the objective truth hasn't changed. It's like science."As far as I know there is no-one here arguing that people who are not specialists in a particular field should not be able to take part in debates about issues in that field."Oh, okay. What is the main problem people here have with the first statement about the majority voting to determine truth?

[Sympo]

mcolome1 wrote:

That situation will never take place in the capitalist society because it is society that is in constant crisis, and the crisis are longer than the period of 'prosperity." It will only take place on an ideal capitalist society based on equilibrium,  it might sound like the same mistake made by Rosa Luxemburg on his anti-critique

Wait, what do you mean? What do this have to do with the question I asked? (Not trying to be a jerk, I am just confused)

[Sympo]

This thread is almost as confusing as the thread "Science for Communists". What is the issue exactly? What are the different views that are in conflict with eachother? Is it basically "Everyone during Socialism should vote on what should be considered to be true(for example the statement 'CO2 damages the ozone layer')" v.s. "People specialized in a certain field should discuss what is correct in that specific field, people who don't know that much about the subject shouldn't take part in the debate"?

[Sympo]

The SPGB don't have many articles about Donald Trump, nice to see a new one.I wonder if Trump will win. If he does, I hope that he won't establish a dictatorship. Some people seem to genuinely believe that he will become a dictator if he wins.

[Sympo]

ALB wrote:

"That the sum total of the prices all the goods and services on sale is the same as the sum total of their exchange-values. But don't forget the words "in principle" as this assumes that capitalism is a static economy whereas it is not."Why do you believe that this is the case, that total price equals total exchange value? What leads you to this conclusion?

[Sympo]

ALB wrote:

"Value (in the Marxian sense) is not the same as 'the average amount of labour put into a certain commodity' (from start to finish)."So what is value?"In principle, 'total price' = 'total exchange value'."What does this mean exactly?"The case for saying that capitalism is based on the exploitation of the producers and that socialism will end this does not rest on Marxian economics. It's just that, in our view, Marx elaborated the best explanation of how capitalism works."I tend to explain my simplistic view of exploitation in Capitalism by saying:"Human labour is the only thing that can create social value. For example, a leather shoe can only exist because someone spent labour time getting all the materials, sewing the shoe so that all the parts stay together(I'm not a shoe expert) and so on.Because human labour is the only thing that can create social value, the only way for the Capitalist to make a profit is by giving his employee less value than what the employee is creating. This is economic exploitation."Is this an incorrect view on exploitation during Capitalism?

[Sympo]

ALB wrote:

"When money has evolved "exchange value" is the same as "price". So, if you don't distinguish between "value" and "exchange value", you end up with only use value (utility) and price, like modern academic economics which preaches that you don't need the concept of 'value'."This may be a dumb question, but why exactly do we need the concept of "value" if by value we mean the average amount of labour put in a certain commodity(if this definition is incorrect please correct me)?"As a matter of fact, Marx did not think that under capitalism(…)commodities were priced at their (exchange) value. Due to the tendency for the rate of profit to be the same in all fields of capitalist investment, commodities were priced at what he called their "price of production", which was cost price + average rate of profit. Only accidentally would this be the same as the amount of socially necessary labour needed to produce them from start to finish.  But, as items of wealth produced for sale, they were still expressions of the underlying social relationship of 'value'."Labour power is a commodity, right? So is labour power priced according to the "price of production"? Also, what is the point of having the concept of exchange-value if it does not have anything to do with the price of a commodity?

[Sympo]

DJP wrote:

I think you're equating "value" with "price", these are not the same thing. (Exchange value is also another thing). "Value" refers to the amount of socially necessary labour time needed to reproduce a commodity, what that level of SNLT is, is regulated by market exchange.Food is a commodity if it is produced with a view for sale on the market. If I grow food in my garden without the intent on selling, it is not a commodity.How much you need to differentiate between different types of commodity would depend on what you were trying to do. I suppose.You might like to watch these videos:https://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/

I am aware that value and price are different things in marxian economics(I'm not trying to be aggressive).So is the answer to my first question "no"?Why is it necessary to separate value from price? Is it so that one may explain why a commodity has a certain price when it's supply and demand are equal?Also, what is the difference with exchange value and value? I thought there were two types of value according to Marx, exchange-value and use-value, and that he often refers to exchange-value as just "value"?I already know that it is only a commodity if it is for sale on the market.I have actually seen all of the videos by that guy(i think), they are pretty good and helpful but sometimes it is a little too much information to handle. One of his videos actually drove me to start this thread. 

[Sympo]

KAZ wrote:

*Is 52% good enough?*

In my opinion as a non-member, no.

[Sympo]

rodmanlewis wrote:

That doesn't tell us what socialism really means. That description tells us what socialism won't be. Socialism means production for use, not profit and common ownership of the means of production.

Should we have a revolution and establish a classless, stateless society without money that produces for use instead of profit and where there is common ownership of the means of production?YesNo

[Sympo]

"Should we have a revolution and establish Socialism, that is to say a classless, stateless society without money?YesNo

[Sympo]

rodmanlewis wrote:

Before Richard Dawkins's recent stroke, I thought it might have been a good idea to have debated him on the subject "Is a world without religion enough?"

I would find it interesting to see a debate with Dawkins and the SPGB.

[Sympo]

Nice to see an article talking about homophobia!Though I was slightly concerned with the fifth paragraph. How many liberals are there exactly who claim that there aren't a muslims who are homophobes? I'm just asking because this is something that a few xenophobes on the right tend to claim.I am an Atheist and wish to see people stop believing in any kind of god, even if they're not aggressive, but I am under the impression that there are quite a lot of Muslims who don't want to actively murder homosexuals(though certainly homophobia is something a lot of Muslims suffer from). There are different degrees of homophobic behaviour(not saying that that people shouldn't reject all types of homophobia).I don't know, this paragraph gave me the impression of something a rightwinger would have written.Also, I want to be clear that this is a view from a non-member(though I agree with a lot of writings from the SPGB).

[Author]

Posts