Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
So ‘the pieces of paper’ (stocks, shares) can be redeemed (sold) at their monetary value at the discretion of the investor? I appreciate the anticipated profits are speculative. The difference between stocks and shares used to be that the former gave a regular guaranteed rate of interest whereas the latter could rise and fall with the success or failure of the industry involved?
Surely stocks are not just ‘pieces of paper’ as they represent the value of the investment in money terms? This is then converted to capital to extract surplus value – is that not correct? As to the idea that value is an abstraction in Marxist terms – this is correct in terms of the dialectic explanation of the history of value that takes up much of the first part of Das Capital but exchange value is tightly associated with the LTV and so is not an abstraction in the common usage sense.
ALB – I wasn’t really referring to Marcuse’s theory only that the media subjects us all to a 24/7 normalization of bourgeois ideology and that our case, in that context, will always appear ‘counter-intuitive’. Rather like our case against reformism I think we should always debate single issues like taxation within the framework of ruling class ideology. From their point of view taxation is a bad thing but that from a majority point of view it is a good thing. It is in their interests that we should all believe that high taxation is an evil – hence the propaganda. You have yourself admitted that socialists are different in being able to see this class contradiction and avoid the conditioning. As to why this is the case Marcuse had some interesting ideas but as with the work of Marx we can accept his analysis without always accepting his conclusions.
‘But that doesn’t prevent some of them understanding some of what we are saying, as for example on taxation. No need to beat ourselves up over us supposedly not getting this part of our case across.’
I take a more holistic (dialectical) view in that our case is integrated and coherent and that to isolate particular elements tends to miss the point. The term ‘counter-intuitive’ used in this debate is, for me, the most interesting and important consideration to emerge. The vast majority think ideologically rather than logically as the result of conditioning. The realization of the perverse coherence of bourgeois ideology across all subjects is an important aid to socialist consciousness. In fact the only reason for us to debate any single issue is to point this out.
‘Is that view based on what your fellow trade union members think or on what people down the pub do?’
Both plus many highly intelligent people that I have met during 40 years of prosecuting the Party case. They also believe in the need for leaders, that capitalism can be reformed, that profit is payment for risk, that history teaches us nothing and has no meaning, that low taxes and high property values are a good thing, that nobody would work without the carrot and stick of wages and the poverty of unemployment, that war is a necessary evil….need I go on? The conformity resulting from the conditioning by the matrix is mind boggling.
‘Personally I think many workers do “get” what we are saying about taxes’
‘Yes, my members were under no illusions about that and the causes of inflation as well.’
Wishful thinking I’m afraid – nobody outside of the Party ‘gets it’ in my experience. They also believe they get a ‘fair wage for a fair days work’ and have no clue as to the origin of profit.
‘But I always thought that the value of labour-power was unique; because unlike other commodities, it was determined by the combative power of the respective antagonists, the employer and the employee, and the level of wages stemmed from the class struggle,…’
More to do with the supply of and demand for skilled labour power I would say.
‘All I can say to that is that if true, it makes the workers look less than bright, if they can so easily be manipulated and conditioned.’
Nobody said it was easy to fool the people all of the time but the billions invested in the media etc. to make us believe their lies 24/7 is testament to its success. Some of the great ‘intellects’ of our time dedicate themselves to defend and rationalize the left and/or right versions of capitalism so it clearly has nothing to do with, as you put it, ‘being less than bright’.
‘To any ordinary person this will surely sound counter intuitive.’
‘…speaker says “workers just don’t get it” etc. – can you tell me why workers don’t get it? My answer is that workers don’t get it because the argument is unsound (illogical, misplaced context etc.) but for you it must be something else. Like, a problem of communication for example. So what is it in your view?’
You may not have noticed pgb but the entire case for socialism appears as ‘counter intuitive’ and ‘illogical’ within a bourgeois culture which is dedicated to normalizing the sick ideology of capitalism. This is evidence for the fact that workers are manipulated and conditioned by such propaganda and that if our understanding of reality did not appear as counter intuitive, or antithetical, as us Marxists would say, then we would know that our case was unsound. I leave it to ALB to answer the rest of your economic misunderstandings.
Jack – so what are your suggestions to improve things? In all honesty I think we have exhausted the possibilities and have tried just about everything. I get tired of the suggestion that somehow we are to blame for our present position. There is no ‘magic pill’ to bring people to consciousness of reality. If our theory of historical materialism is correct then the working class will hear us sooner or later but there’s absolutely no point in the self flagellation that some members indulge in. We have to be there for the world when it recognizes the need for us – if it is too late (in terms of the environment) or the majority will never hear us then our theory of how everything works is mistaken – and there’s no evidence for that at this time as all of our predictions have come to pass.
Jack – not the progress we would have hoped for but you can’t kill an idea. Socialism can never die and we have managed to preserve its true meaning whereas our opponents, specifically the Left, have come and gone in an infinite variety leaving nothing behind them apart from cynicism.
ALB – and then the Trots will infiltrate it and give the membership another reason to disassociate themselves from ‘socialism’. This was a response to what ALB was saying about the call for a mass-movement’ of environmentalists which now seems to have disappeared! Oh,and now it’s returned below this response!!
‘because average wages in all advanced capitalist societies today are well above subsistence level.’
I thought that the price of labour power (wages) was defined, like all other commodities, by the amount of labour time that creates and sustains it. Thus a highly skilled worker (surgeon, architect etc.) will receive higher wages than an unskilled worker because of the amount of training etc. involved (assuming his or her skills are needed by the market and so subject to the law of supply and demand). The ‘minimum wage’ does represent subsistence level and there are millions who receive this in our ‘advanced capitalist society’. In this context I don’t think the concept of an ‘average wage’ is relevant or helpful. I’m no economist so these are just my musings. Good debate.
Couple of things:
‘Writing in 1847 Marx would have had in mind indirect taxes on the goods workers bought not a direct tax on their wages. No workers paid that then. In fact
capitalists didn’t either.’Capitalists did pay ‘land tax’ didn’t they?
‘I am guessing that Marx wrote that article for the money and was writing what he thought the editor would like his readers to read. But, anyway, that passage is wrong.’
Marx has been accused of many things to which we now have to add a lack of integrity?
