A general thread dedicated to political economy. Discuss political economy and related concepts, including geopolitical economy. Will be posting links in a subsequent post since thread openers now have an upper limit for text that is lower than replies (some kind of bug reported in /meta/ already).
>>2053373If one man has a dollar he didn't work for, some other man worked for a dollar he didn't get.
-Big Bill Haywood
>>2053373(massively oversimplified and doesn't use specific terminology)> 1 If you’re a boss, and you own a business, you have to pay the worker less than their work is worth. What their work is worth is the money their work makes.< 2 If you pay them exactly what their work is worth, you don’t make any money, your business won’t grow, and you’ll get bought out by some other boss who pays workers less than you. So in the long run "nice" bosses who pay the workers what their work is worth go out of business.> 3 If you pay a worker more than their work is worth, you’re losing money, your business will shrink, and you’ll go out of business due to bankruptcy. < 4 the problem is the system, not just the individual boss, because the way the system is set up, workers have to beg for a job from people who own the places that workers work at, and the bosses only give the job to the lowest bidder, the people willing to do the most in exchange for the least in return. That is the people who accept way less money than what money their work makes for the business.> 5 everybody who can't get a job has to keep looking for a job until they get so desperate they start selling themselves for less and less. There's a lot of people like this and there are so many of them they can be brought in to replace people who are trying to start unions and get higher pay.< 6 even with how little bosses pay workers, they think it's too much because they have to maximize the amount of money they don't give to the workers so they can put it into growing the business and competing with other businesses and buying up the loser businesses. so they constantly look for ways to make more money and pay less money.> 7 bosses send the workers' jobs overseas to where the labor is cheaper, and they want workers to blame the other workers overseas even though the bosses are the ones sending the jobs off and calling themselves job creators while they do it< 8 bosses hire a bunch of better paid workers with expensive education that they went into debt for in order to make machines and software to do lower paid workers jobs, so they can fire a lot of the lower paid workers, growing the pool of desperate unemployed. and then the bosses take credit for what those educated workers create ("innovate")> 9 bosses give a lot of the worst jobs to people who just got here and are usually running away from some fucked up shit like war and are therefore more desperate than even the average schmuck. this makes the native desperate unemployed angry at the new arrivals instead of the bosses.< 10 despite all this shit bosses do to get rid of workers or make workers work for less money, they still need workers in order to sell the stuff they make, and if everyone's too poor to buy that shit, then they gotta lower the price> 11 the faster they make stuff, the cheaper that stuff gets, because less work time goes into creating it,< 12 paper money is just a government IOU that says some work got done> 13 real money is something that required a lot of work to make, like a precious metal that had to get mined, refined, smelted, shaped into a standardized portable durable unit, so it can be traded for something that took the same amount of work to make.< 14 people only think about paper money (or these days digital ledgers) instead of real money because real money has been hidden away in vaults and daily life which uses paper money distracts from its existence >>2053454>15 bosses hire a bunch of slightly higher paid "special workers" to do boss stuff like supervise, manage, train, hire, fire, handle disputes, etc. This is because the real boss, the one who owns the business, can't even be bothered to do boss stuff. When most people hear the word "boss" they think of the manager, trainer, supervisor, dispute handler, etc. They are trained to think of this person as a hard worker, which sometimes they are. This makes them difficult to win over because they think "my boss works hard" and they think not of the actual person who owns the business, but the "special workers" who the boss hires to do boss stuff. >>2053406>pre-marxian-economy.pdfOh cool. I was interested in more of this kinda stuff after reading
Theories of Surplus Value. Thanks!
one thing I haven't seen posted here is Harry Cleaver's guide to reading capital:
https://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/357k/357ksg.htmlits excellent and expands on his book on the subject 'reading capital politically'.
>>2054507Precisely. In a way "political economy" implies the existence of "non-political economy" or "apolitical economy." Originally economy, a word we get from Greek antiquity, means "household management." But the type of household in question was the large household of an ancient Greek aristocrat, which was in and of itself a small slaveholding society. From the very beginning the household estate management of the Greek slave owner was, in microcosm, the management of the larger slaveholding society as a whole.
Aristotle when talking about economics was the first to draw a distinction between use value and exchange value, but he never hit upon society's average abstract labor time (the socially necessary labor time as Marx calls it) as the chief determinant of the exchange value of the useful object. This was because commodity production was not generalized in Aristotle's time, manufacture was still done by hand by a limited class of skilled artisans, and Aristotle, being a slave owner and aristocrat, regarded the vast majority of laborers (slaves) as dehumanzied "tools with voices."
It took 2,200 years after the birth of Aristotle for Marx to come along, study the classics of philosophy, and then subsequently to become interested in political economy (as it was understood between the 1500s and early 1800s). And it was he who hit upon socially necessary labor time as the chief determinant of exchange value.
His discoveries and more importantly the political use of his discoveries angered and frightened the ruling class so much that "political" economy was unceremoniously murdered and buried and now all we have left is "apolitical" economy. Economists of today are the high priests of bourgeois ideology. Ironically it is the capitalists, not the economists, who are more likely to admit out loud (without realizing the implications) that the exchange value of a commodity at its equilibrium price, is chiefly determined by the average required labor time to produce it.
It is the job of the high priests to dissuade the public of what they intuitively know to be true: That a commodity has no exchange value if it is not useful (subjective component of value) and additionally did not require labor to produce (objective component of value), And for the high priests that chiefly consists in pushing subjective theories of value and marginal utility. They focus economics on the "consumer" (both proles and bourgeoisie outside the workplacet) and the "producers" (both proles and bourgeoisie in the workplace) to create an interclass understanding of economics that excludes class conflict as relevant at all.
>>2053698this is an interesting question that is always getting debated here, albeit in a more abstract way. If you say that the marginalized "idpol" struggles (protection of Homosexuals, Bisexuals, Asexuals, Transgenders, Intersex people, women, ethnic and religious minorities, and above all children) are irrelevant and that the class struggle takes top priority, then that means these questions are postponed until socialism is established, at which point they will resurface under socialism, and those struggles will constitute the "political" economy of socialism. Economics can never be fully depoliticized in my opinion but under socialism the class struggle is "solved" i.e. depoliticized. But there are still economic issues for the marginalized that are not necessarily depoliticized.
>>2055365
>necessary to move that raw good into a facility that can process them?
>Is a steel sheet more or less valuable if the iron ore used to process it had to be imported or does the sheet retain that same value because it ti now a steel sheet?
[in another thread someone asked a question that fit in this thread, so I answer here as well as there.]
>inherent value
value in marx is treated as socially necessary labor time, which is the average duration of labor time required to produce a commodity in average conditions, by a worker of average skill, dexterity, etc, using the average methods and technology normal in that society, etc. So value in Marx is treated as a social aggregate, not as an inherent property of an individual object. That being said, acquiring an education does have a lot of labor go into it on the part of the student/future worker. But in a lot of capitalist economies the student pays for that rather than gets paid for that. So that's why their wage is higher later on. To pay them back for the expensive education that they also took out a loan for and paid interest for. Under socialism I imagine education would just be considered part of job training and you would be paid for that job training while you do it, rather than going in debt for it, only to receive a "labor aristocratic" high salary later on.
>Is it all based on time or a myriad of other factors, such as scarcity of raw resources
marx treats scarcity as labor time. if it takes more time (on average) to find gold ore due to its increased scarcity, then that means the socially necessary labor time require to acquire gold goes up, because finding gold (not to mention mining, purifying, smelting, etc.) is now a more labor intensive process.
>effort necessary to move that raw good to a facility that can process
contributes to the socially necessary labor time.
>is a steel sheet more or less valuable if the iron ore used to process it had to be imported or does the sheet retain same value because it is now a steel sheet.
value is a social aggregate. the individual sheet requiring more time contributes to that average, but not significantly enough. the (equilibrium) price on the market is going to correlate closely to society's average labor time required to produce an average steel sheet, not a particularly troublesome steel sheet.
The variation in the qualities of an individual commodity are ultimately not that important, but do contribute in a very small statistical way to the SNLT.
(someone tell me if I'm off base about any of this)
>>2053454> 1 If you’re a boss, and you own a business, you have to pay the worker less than their work is worth. What their work is worth is the money their work makes.so are you saying one possible resolution to this conflict is to pay the workers' labour's full actual value?
also, this is completely tangential, does labour create all value?
>>2056193I mean I never called cockshott himself an idiot I just said that about the other guys he's lumped in with.
tbh imo he's just kinda meh, his economic analysis videos are not bad (from what I watched of him) but I think he' contradicts himself when he talks about rejecting Hegel on one side and then he completely accepts Mao's dialectics on the other
>>2056204>so are you saying one possible resolution to this conflict is to pay the workers' labour's full actual value?No. The post (which admits from the beginning to being a massive oversimplification) goes on to elaborate that businesses cannot profit or grow if they pay workers "what their work is worth" because profit is taken from "work."
Marx uses "abstract labor" to describe any kind of work in general, uses "concrete labor" to describe specific types of labor, and uses "labor power" to describe the commodity form of labor that workers "sell" to the capitalist in exchange for a wage. Capitalists take money, buy means of production from other capitalists, buy labor power from workers, and buy land/buildings from rentiers. They mix these 3 commodities together in a workplace to produce an output commodity that is worth more than all the inputs.
Marx is clear that Capitalists
on average are not simply price gouging (though some certainly do), but are actually selling their output commodities
at their value i.e. for the socially necessary labor time required to produce them. The key insight is that labor power is also a commodity, and has a socially necessary labor time. the socially necessary labor time required to produce a day of labor power is the susbsistence of the laborer. So a laborer is paid on average what is necessary to keep them and their families alive and healthy, but not much else. The worker has to be paid exactly enough to make them come back the next day, but not too much that they have no reason to keep working. Labor power is a unique commodity because it is capable of producing more than it requires to survivel. So a worker only needs 2500 calories of food, 64oz of water, shelter, clean air, etc. for a day, but they are capable of producing commodities worth more than what they need to survive. So you pay them what they require to survive, but you sell what they make with their labor power at its "fair" price, which is its value, and you make a profit. Even if you don't price gouge. Without the profit, the business cannot grow, and will be destroyed by more competitive businesses. The solution is not to pay workers what their work is actually worth (which was the slogan of the Lasallean Socialists who rivaled Marx/Engels and Utopian socialists who came before Marx/Engels) but to abolish the wages system altogether by nationalizing monopolies, letting society own the means of production collectively, and compelling the bourgeoisie to work for a living like everyone else, rather than deriving profit from ownership.
>>2054871>>2054849>>2053698political economy is NOT politicised economy.
political economy is defined contrary to "economy" generally, which is defined by aristotle as a form of basic accounting which rarely left the household. aristotle is also the thinker of "politics" as such which he sees in contradiction to economy. the state and civil society are separated here.
this is also as marx perceives; aristotle is the first thinker of value, despite not affirming it as a reality
political economy refers to the economy of the state/nation generally, which is why it begins as a bourgeois science in adam smith. the concept of political economy is the theory of value which makes trade commensurable.
the reason why marxists dont believe in a socialist political economy is because they imagine the value-form (money) to have been abolished in place of a new medium of exchange which directly represents labour, like marx's idea of labour-certificates for example.
political economy just refers to the law of value as it determines society
>>2056339OK fair. I think economics will still be
politicized under socialism even if that's not what the operative definition of
political is in the phrase
political economy. >>2056403well marx in critique of the gotha program says that unequal labour powers will create unequal results, naturally, but that overtime these inequalities will be resolved. we can compare it to today where "equity" doesnt mean sidelining talent - or i hope it doesnt, in your case.
"the world needs ditch-diggers too y'know".
im a ditch-digger, not a movie star, so i understand
>>2056408this is the current consensus of anthropologists since 1985 and has been since caroline humphrey.
>pdf attachedbut it was also the position of marx when he wrote capital.
> Pic 2> Chapter 2, Page 61 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf It's alright, 'cause the historical pattern has shown
How the economical cycle tends to revolve
In a round of decades, three stages stand out in a loop
A slump and war, then peel back to square one and back for more
Bigger slump and bigger wars
And a smaller recovery
Huger slump and greater wars
And a shallower recovery
You see, the recovery always comes 'round again
There's nothing to worry for, things will look after themselves
It's alright, recovery always comes 'round again
There's nothing to worry if things can only get better
There's only millions that lose their jobs
And homes and sometimes accents
There's only millions that die
In their bloody wars, it's alright
It's only their lives and the lives
Of their next of kin that they are losing
It's only their lives and the lives
Of their next of kin that they are losing
See upcoming pop shows
Get tickets for your favorite artists
It's alright, 'cause the historical pattern has shown
How the economical cycle tends to revolve
In a round of decades, three stages stand out in a loop
A slump and war, then peel back to square one and back for more
Bigger slump and bigger wars
And a smaller recovery
Huger slump and greater wars
And a shallower recovery
Don't worry, be happy
Things will get better naturally
Don't worry, shut up, sit down
Go with it and be happy
>>2057769do you think i am denying a self-evident fact?
the law of value denotes that there is an equality at the base of materials which renders trade commensurable. i am not denying that labour is a cost of production, but thats costs themselves are determined by equal labours employed.
markets determine costs, not labour-power.
>>2057790marx's "value" is just smith's "natural price" of labour compared to the "market price" of goods, so value in marx's framework is still a factor of price.
equal labour-powers have different prices in different markets, so we just return to my point again.
>>2057796Marx builds on classical economics, particularly David Ricardo, but his Law of Value is more focused on the idea that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of socially necessary labor time required to produce it. This differs from Smith's idea of the natural price, which encompasses a broader set of factors (including capital and land, not just labor power). Marx's "value" is more fundamental than price, as it is tied to the way capitalist relations shape production and exploitation.
Prices correlate with value, especially equilibrium prices, but value is simply the socially necessary labor time, i.e. the amount of labor time required to produce a commodity under average conditions of production, with the average skill and tools available, in a given society.
The natural price in Adam Smith’s framework is the cost of production of a good, which includes the labor, capital, and land used to produce it. It reflects the long-term cost of producing a commodity under normal or average conditions.
These frameworks are not the same.
>>2057807and how is this value of the worker measured? by his wage. his labour-power is fully redeemed by the capitalist, so where is the discrepancy?
"human labour in the abstract" is only perceived by thr commodity of labour-power, which is effectually smith's concept of a natural price of labour, or the "first price" of production.
unless you want to break marx's methodology by pretending that you can measure value outside of money. money is the measure of value to marx, according to chapter 3 of capital vol. 1
>>2057816>and how is this value of the worker measured? by his wage.No. The proletarian is compensated with a wage. The proletarian is not valued by a wage.
The proletarian is not sold once and for all like a slave. The proletarian sells his or her labor power as a commodity on a timely basis, usually for an hourly rate. But what they produce with an hour of that labor power is more valuable than what they are paid for an hour of labor power, which is why profit is even possible. Why would a capitalist even purchase labor power if they weren't going to sell what that labor power produces for more than they bought the labor power for?
And it's not just price gouging in the commodity market. Capitalists rely on commodities produced in other sectors. If it were all price gouging no capitalist would buy commodities from other sectors for their own industrial processes. The labor power is exploited. Commodities are sold at their value, but labor power is compensated beneath the value of what it creates. Labor power is compensated merely with subsistence, but is capable of producing beyond its own subsistence.
>his labour-power is fully redeemed by the capitalist, so where is the discrepancy?you contradict your previous sentence. you say the value of the worker (as if the worker were being sold) is the wage. Now you admit that the labor power, not the worker, is being sold.
Labour-power is "fully redeemed" only in the sense that the socially necessary labor time required to produce a day of LP is a day of subsistence (the cost of the necessities required to refresh the laborer's capacity to labor the next day), but marx shows that LP is the peculiar commodity, in that it alone is capable of producing more value than it is required to sustain itself. This is why profit is even possible. LP is compensated with subsistence wages, but the commodity that LP produces, sold at its value, still produces a profit for the capitalist, even when the capitalist sells it at its exact value, and doesn't price-gouge, or take advantage of some kind of unusual scarcity which results in desperation.
All of this is because LP can produce the subsistence required for another day of LP in less than a day. That is why LP is the unique commodity. That is why exploitation and profit are possible.
>unless you want to break marx's methodology by pretending that you can measure value outside of money.Value =/= price
Value = Socially necessary labor time
Money is used to measure value, but price diverges from value due to factors like supply and demand which effects the prices of commodities AFTER labor power produces them. If you take the price of a commodity, and abstract away confounding factors like supply/demand, currency hegemony, etc. you are left with value, which is SNLT required to produce the commodity. price is the manifestation of value, but it does not equal value. Money itself is only valuable because it is backed by a reserve of precious metals which themselves require a certain amount of SNLT to mine, refine, smelt, mint into standardized units, or bullion. But capital has succeeded in divorcing money from its material basis through ledgers and IOUs.
>>2057965>>2057965yes you are right to say that the worker and his labour-power are separate things. one is the seller of commodities; the other is the commodity.
>Commodities are sold at their value<but labor power is compensated beneath the value of what it createsnot true. marx says that the *labour* which is embodied by labour-power is inextricably lost to the worker since it never belonged to him in the first place. the capitalist does not sell excess "labour-power", but commodities with labour imported into them, as use-values. labour-power is a commodity exclusive to the worker, not a quality of commodities; thats why it is "abstract" labour, not "concrete" labour.
this is why marx thinks labour-power as a commodity is entitled to its value by its social reproduction in the wage, since it is sold at its value on the market, like anything else.
>but marx shows that LP is the peculiar commodity, in that it alone is capable of producing more value than it is required to sustain itselfsurplus-labour is a result of the commodity-relation of labour-power, but is itself not an extension of labour-power. if value = SNLT then the value of LP is x amount which = wages, while surplus-value is what exists beyond it, which is itself not a factor of LP.
LP (abstract labour) *produces* concrete labours.
>this is why profit is even possibleso no profit existed before capitalism?
>price is the manifestation of value, but it does not equal value.exactly, so value theory is metaphysical nonsense
just say that capitalists make profits by unpaid labour and you remove a lot of complex jargon. we can see practical examples in the household, where children do chores as part of their maintenance. this is a natural relationship of exploitation.
>Money itself is only valuable because it is backed by a reserve of precious metalswoah woah WOAH
this is why i call your marxism anachronistic
>But capital has succeeded in divorcing money from its material basis through ledgers and IOUs.so what? maybe you just have an incorrect theory of money. marx is a thinker of the gold standard, not fiat, so whats your response? have we abolished money, or have we just abolished marx?
>>2058083>SNLT required to create itits printed by a computer. it has no SNLT.
it is not a commodity, in fact, while marx prefigures money as a commodity that acts as universal equivalent
there is no equivalence of values between money and commodities today however, but only of commodities and commodities (C-C) with money arbitrating the relation, so have we reverted to barter according to marxists?
>>2058087How do you feel about the notion of fictitious capital as dealt with in volume III?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch25.htm>[In the credit system] commodities are not sold for money, but for a written promise to pay for them at a certain date. >[Bills of exchange function] as money, although there is no eventual transformation into actual moneyThe whole reason the gold standard was done away with was because imperial core capitalists had created so much fictitious capital in the form of bills of exchange that it became impossible to convert them all back into actual money-commodities like precous metals. So the entire problem was swept under the rug by adding another layer of abstraction on top of the already existing exploitation.
>>2058154its an arbitrary distinction, unless one supposes that bills of exchange *represent* money, as they did in marx's time. but when you get rid of money in place of fiat currency you basically re-define money into being the medium of exchange itself.
fiat currency represents *debt* today, so you can say that debt is today's "money", as a commodity, but that is conjecture. what is more primary is fiat currency's access to local markets, which contains commodities, but money in itself is *not* a commodity. this again is marxism's anachronism.
>>2058204>If it were simply created out of thin air and had no SNLT then everyone could create it.the reason why you cant just create and distribute it is because you dont have monopoly power like a national government does
the rule is, pay in £,$ or €, or else you starve
david graeber speaks on this principle in his book on debt. colonists would appropriate the land and force natives to work for their currency so that it would get paid back in taxes. all states work similarly.
>But I can't magically deposit more money into my bank account just because i have a computer.also because you dont have access to bank servers
>>2058241>>2058253a dollar is a piece of paper, so has no value
but it allows access into markets which have commodities. in this it also attains an exchange rate with other currencies which represent other markets, and so even if you have 100 functionally worthless dollars in japan you can trade them for yen and then access commodities.
>>2058264>>2058268>The piece of paper itself has no value>the fiat fetishism, which makes it commensurable with commoditiesaccording to marx, value is the prefigurement of commensurability since it is the relation which determines exchange; which is why he says in chapter 3 of capital vol. 1 that money is not the thing which makes trade commensurable, but that which only measures the values exchanged by being in equal proportion with them.
so if you admit that fiat has no value then you admit that either marx is wrong or that we exist in a mediated barter system (C-C) in which money does not enter into the trade of commodities. this is also why marx says that "labour money" (labour vouchers) are as much money as a ticket for your coat is money - here he disregards a valueless token as "money" proper, which is why he promotes "labour certificates" in critique of the gotha program
marx in seeing the money-form as the universal equivalent (in the equivalence of values) sees value as inherent to its commodity, while fiat has no value
>the need for fiat arises from the need of capital to expand the money supply indefinitely to serve its own interestsfor our interests too. the great depression is what happens when you dont expand the money supply.
>the social fiction surrounding it.there is no illusion. the fiction is backed up with guns, not merely a nebulous "trust". trust is the complacent face of force.
>>2058283or rather, you must admit that money does not "measure" value, but that "value" is equal to price, which reverses marx's notion of commensurability - where we instead see the medium of exchange give possibility to exchange.
anthropological works which debunk the barter myth also help make this case against marx's genaeology of the value form
>>2058283>there is no illusion. the fiction is backed up with gunsguns are commodities with a SNLT to create, i.e. a value
all economic activity is mediated with human labor
>>2058031>value theory is metaphysical nonsenseMarx and Engels specifically differentiated dialectics from metaphysics. They critically engaged with metaphysical thinking, especially as it was understood in traditional philosophy, and emphasized dialectics as a more dynamic, historical, and materialist method of understanding reality.
Metaphysical thinking treats concepts in a static, isolated way, while dialectical materialism focuses on dynamic, interconnected processes and change.
In dialectics, contradictions are seen as motivating forces for change and development, while metaphysical thinking tends to see contradictions as anomalies to be eliminated or resolved.
>>2058297this is an idiotic confusion of marx's theory of value
money to marx measures value because it contains in itself a value, but as you say, fiat has no value, so it cannot measure values - so fiat is not money to marx, like how labour vouchers are not money, since neither are commodities
in your concerns of social activity as a whole you make the leap from a value analysis of economy to a logistical one, which is not marx's concern.
>>2058301i have already given you the benefit of the doubt explaining how the economic concept of value can only be understood as the "first price" of production, and that marx's idea of value in labour-power must be expressed in the wage relation yet nothing seems to be comprehended thereafter. wages are the price of labour-power which expresses its value, or SNLT, in the cost of reproduction. value has no independent relation outside of price, so value and price can be generally assumed to be the same thing. but as i say, i dont believe in economic "value", so im not stuck with this problem.
>>2058305your wikipedia article doesnt help anything
>>2058310>your wikipedia article doesnt help anythingwasn't quoting wikipedia, you pretentious
rude bourgeois apologist.
>>2058031NTA, but I'm pretty sure you misunderstood marx
>commodities with labour imported into them, as use-valuesnot as use-values, but as exchange value. What matter to the capitalist selling commodities is explicitly not the use value, and what get embodied is the exchange value
>thats why it is "abstract" labour, not "concrete" labour."abstract" labour is simply the labour useful to the capitalists to get exchange values, its not a concept applied to a specific task or worker, its what you get when you do calculations of profit
>while surplus-value is what exists beyond it, which is itself not a factor of LPLP is priced accordingly to the value of its reproduction when you buy it, but the surplus value still come from the labor embodied in it, so it is a result of labor power
>LP (abstract labour) *produces* concrete labours.its the exact inverse relation actually, concrete labor (a guy actually doing a task in a capitalist business leading to eventual commodity selling and profit) creates abstract labor (work that has value, and is embodied in commodities)
>so no profit existed before capitalism?a merchant or artisan could "profit", but it was a very small part of the economy (and a small surplus), other ways of extracting value was used by the ruling classes (taxes, direct work / service), and a merchant/artisan mostly only got his own work (transport/skilled transformation) to profit from embodied in what he sells (and their fixed capital (cart/tools) was fairly small compared to a factory).
Surplus value in the capitalist sense only appear when you use capital to pay for work (and machines) which creates commodities which generate more capital than what you started with, without you doing work yourself.
>exactly, so value theory is metaphysical nonsensewhat. Are you retarded?
>just say that capitalists make profits by unpaid labour and you remove a lot of complex jargonbut then you're basically inaccurate. That labor was paid for, but it generated more value than what it cost, which is its unique characteristic, as all other commodities dont do that, you have to transform them, transport them, store them or something like that to get more from them.
>we can see practical examples in the household, where children do chores as part of their maintenancewhat. Again, are you retarded, how is that comparable?
>this is a natural relationship of exploitationare you actually trolling?
>maybe you just have an incorrect theory of moneyor not, because even if money is not backed by its material value, all the labor theory remain intact, simply now the money is a pure accounting unit without any intrinsic material value, only exchange value. Everything else remain valid, the unit of account exchange value is simply divorced from its material value (because who needed that material value, really?)
>have we abolished money, or have we just abolished marx?the conclusion is neither, fiat money changes some dynamics of the system on the periphery, but the whole core of the theory and snlt remain completely intact
>>2058480hasn't marxists.org had their volume 3 translation up since before 2016? or is this only referring to
professional translations.
>>2058547>Capital Vol 3 was edited and published by Engels after Marx's death. Right.
>his is the original, unedited manuscript by Marx.I guess what I'm asking is: Doesn't that just imply republishing what we already had minus Engel's commentary? Or am I misunderstanding?
>I don't think I've seen it on marxists.org. According to the preface it was never published until 1992 and no english translation existed until this book came out.Interesting.
>>2058592>I guess what I'm asking is: Doesn't that just imply republishing what we already had minus Engel's commentary? Or am I misunderstanding? https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/editorial/heinrich.htmI found this by Michael Heinrich which describes many of the changes and edits Engels did and the parts he had to finish by himself. According to him:
>The book published by Engels in 1894 is not a mere edition of Marx’s manuscript, but a far-reaching adaptation of the original manuscript. Only the smallest number of Engels’ interventions is made visible. The largest extent of the alterations remains hidden to the readers. The interventions themselves are not just of a formal or stylistical nature; they deceive the readers about the actual extent of elaboration, they offer solutions for problems which the manuscript left open (without clarification that these are Engels’ solutions!), and in some passages they even change the argumentation of the original text, if this obstructs Engels’ interpretations. Therefore, Engels’ edition can no longer be considered to be volume III of Marx’s Capital; it is not Marx’s text “in the full genuineness of his own presentation,” as Engels wrote in the supplement (Capital, III, 889), but a strong editing of this presentation, a preinterpreted textbook edition of Marx’s manuscript. >>2056649>>2056663>wordyHouse contains x beds. On the topic of housing x people, then a house is seen as a place that can serve as a sleeping place for x individuals. That the value of the house as a containment of beds.
RIGHT?
>>2057807>Marx builds on classical economics, particularly David Ricardo, but his Law of Value is more focused on the idea that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of socially necessary labor time required to produce it.That's because he wanted to put the labor as the just measuring tool of all, but you could find yourself looking at an object a flee market that took days to make and has no value to you or anyone else. You could also find something extremely valuable simply because outside of having taken a certain amount of time to be produced, it has gained value merely by being older and gaining on the vintage attribute.
>>2057965>But what they produce with an hour of that labor power is more valuable than what they are paid for an hour of labor power, which is why profit is even possibleThe costs of a company, even if all were perfect and no money was lost to shareholders, are not limited to what a worker does. Even if every single one of the workers of a plant owned all the material and immaterial resources, not all the revenues generated by the sale of manufactured goods could be given back to the workers. An amount has to go to pay for the machines and vehicles, their maintenance, their replacement if they're too broken of if we're looking at raw resources, fuel, etc. Plus there's a need to keep some extra money for further expenses or in case anything goes wrong. In other words, there
has to be a point where the range of products has to be sold at a price higher than the sheer sum of salaries. A profit has to be made. The real issue lies in the imbalance in redistribution of wealth after the sales between the workers, the hierarchy above and the owners (nominative, or funds, shareholders or else).
>>2058418>not as use-values, but as exchange value. >what get embodied is the exchange valuethere is no embodiment in exchange-values, but exchange values (values in exchange) simply denote a social relation of the labour embodied in commodities as use-values. this is why money to marx is a MEASURE of value; a value which exists within, but can only be expressed between commodities. exchange-values are abstractions, which is why they represent abstract labour.
>"abstract" labour is simply the labour useful to the capitalists to get exchange values, its not a concept applied to a specific task or worker, its what you get when you do calculations of profit no, marx defines abstract labour as SNLT which is the common value expressed between commodities which make them exchangeable. it has no specific labour, but specific commodities are put in proportion and are valued based on this abstraction. it is not "useful labour", it is useful labour TIME.
>LP is priced accordingly to the value of its reproduction when you buy it, but the surplus value still come from the labor embodied in it, so it is a result of labor powerit is a result of labour-power, but is not labour-power itself. commodities do not "contain" labour-power, but only (embodied) labour. you are confusing terms.
>its the exact inverse relation actually, concrete labor (a guy actually doing a task in a capitalist business leading to eventual commodity selling and profit) creates abstract labor (work that has value, and is embodied in commodities) no no NO. you just dont understand, and yet you pretend that you are wiser than me. concrete labour is the embodied labour already within commodities. there is no concrete labour existing outside the commodity form. abstract labour by comparison is the relation *between* commodities signified by the measure of value in money. abstract labour by definition cannot be "embodied" since it is "abstract".
>a merchant or artisan could "profit"okay, so profit isnt just a capitalist enterprise then. worthless theological pivots interrupt this obvious fact.
>what. Are you retarded?why? because i dont believe in a supernatural entity called "value" that invisibly exists between all commodities?
>That labor was paid for, but it generated more value than what it costyes, so profit de facto is a form of unpaid labour. simple. didnt need 500 pages to explain that, did i?
>how is that comparable?because it is unpaid labour and is therefore a natural relation of exploitation. just like how housewives work without getting paid. or how slaves work without getting paid. or how animals work without getting paid. or how machines work without getting paid. it is this primary exploitation which allows profit, which is why capitalist society is the uniquely technological society. machines are just lifeless slaves. capitalism is a form of artificial slavery, not "surplus value" extraction lole. thats why you can imagine an automated workforce despite marx saying that machines create no value. so we exist in an increasingly valueless capitalism then, despite it being the biggest its ever been.
>or not, because even if money is not backed by its material value, all the labor theory remain intactto marx, money today cannot be a measure of value, so it cannot measure the value of abstract labours since it does not partake in the value relation. so either marx is wrong or we have abolished money. your choice. and dont be a weasely dogmatist about it.
>fiat money changes some dynamics of the system on the periphery, but the whole core of the theory and snlt remain completely intactyou are completely delusional. but keep praying to St. Marx to deliver you from your confusion anyhow. your position is that "marx was right therefore he was right", which is a useless and obnoxious tautology. i am tired of dealing with people like you.
>>2058589>unpaid labour isnt exploitationvery "marxist" of you lol
but keep coping anyway. and only get back to me when you actually have an argument.
>>2060188>children doing chores in the vast majority of cases isn't unpaid labor. The labor was paid for in advance by the shelter, food, water they receive from their parents.yes, just like slaves and their masters. just replace the terms. and again, dont take my comments moralistically. i am merely explaining the exploitation of everyday existence.
>>2060191>has no argument so resorts to insultlol. i love exposing the idiots on this site.
you dont know how pathetic you look.
>>2060188Which is why I say having secondary school students do community service for their spring semesters would be much better than just doing bookwork.
They could get hands on vocational training on stuff.
>>2060237you should be seeing school itself as unpaid labour which kids deserve time off from
college students get paid to learn, while children just get pestered. its all in the property relation.
i have suggested previously that kids should be rewarded for good grades and so on; maybe even monetarily.
>>2060359>college students get paid to learn???? They go into massive debt taking out huge student loans and paying ridiculous amounts for tuition, textbooks, etc.
>you should be seeing school itself as unpaid labour which kids deserve time off fromPublic school is education provided for free by the state which children have every summer off from
>i have suggested previously that kids should be rewarded for good grades and so on; maybe even monetarily.<Instead of the conservative motto: “A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!” they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: “Abolition of the wages system!"< Marx, Value Price and Profit >>2060366>student debtits called an investment
>summer holidaysyeah. my point was not to fill them up with "community service". again, this pretense is all in the property relation. kids are slaves, so are treated like slaves. imagine suggesting that college students should even clean up their bedrooms, and see the havoc you would create.
>get rid of wages bla blawell i am a conservative reformist, not a larper, so call me a revisionist. even the USSR had wages.
>>2060370<repeats mantrayou are possessed
>nobody's going to trade something that took 5 hours to make for something that took 4 hours to make unless they're desperate or stupid.why not? if im really thirsty i could pay $5 for a drink. that has little to do with its "value". you are under the assumption that markets operate by rational actors. they dont. and thats why they work.
>>2060382<unless they're desperate or stupid(you ignored this part)
> if im really thirstydesperate, like i said
<irrational actorsstupid, like i said
The point is that prices correlate closely with value, which is just equilibrium price, which is just socially necessary labor time, which is just average labor inputs, BECAUSE things take labor to make and scarcity just means something takes more labor time to make. for example if a mineral is increasingly rare it takes more labor time to find it before you mine it, which contributes to SNLT. value is just SNLT, which is equilibrium price. Prices correlate so closely with value because prices are just SNLT after secondary and tertiary variables like supply and demand take effect. But what always takes effect first, and is the primary variable of most importance, is SNLT, which is value.
Statistically speaking outliers like "I was really thirsty at the Burning Man festival in the middle of the desert so I paid way more for water" is just artificial scarcity
>>2060366>Public school is education provided for free by the state which children have every summer off from🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
If public schooling was realy free, then school lunches wouldbt need a pay plan.
If public schooling was free, there would be no truancy laws
If public schooling wasfree, it wouldnt bpaid for by taxes
>>2060382>>2060359Truthnuke: Adults have greater freedom of choice than kids.
All the bellyaching about work as some form of slavery whike downplaying or justofying compulsory law for school is hypocritical and shallow.
Most of the belkyaching about wrk I hear haslittle to do with the actual logistics of wrk itself. Itsmore to due with this adolescent drive to have their "big day out."
School is the ultimate form of slsvery with its normalisation of bullying and coerced socialisation.
Most adults arevunable to recall anything they learned in school but can easily remember all the musadventures they had in school.
All adults do is compare their generational pasttimes to the new kids.
All adults do about schooling is hyperfocus on the socialisation part.
In fact, adults nitpick amd pathologise kids based on how kids interact relative to their elders cultural expectations of childhood.
It was never about learning. The real reason why adults are upping the ante with their anti-tech sentiment isnt because of learning prospects but because they want the newer generatiins to be carbon copiesof them in terms of recreation.
Schools pathologise loner kids who get their schoolwork done efficiently and prefer worldly/non liberal/non-idealist opinions.
>>2058310>value and price can be generally assumed to be the same thinglabor inputs primarily determine the equilibrium price of a commodity. Each commodity has a unique equilibrium price based on the socially necessary labor time required for its production.
Supply and demand don't directly set the equilibrium price; instead, they explain deviations from that price. When demand increases or supply decreases, prices can rise above or fall below the equilibrium set by labor values. So, while labor time determines the baseline value (equilbrium price), market dynamics cause temporary fluctuations.
value is price minus market dynamics.
price is value plus market dynamics.
value isolates price from its non-labor variables
>>2073245>Supply and demand don't directly set the equilibrium price; instead, they explain deviations from that price.(NTA) Yes! This is so obvious to Marxists and yet time and time again I hear bourgeois economists repeat the myth that supply and demand "determine" the price even though when those two factors cancel each other out (i.e. reach an equilibrium) you are left with a price which is completely arbitrary and varies from one commodity to the next. Why the FUCK would supply and demand be able to "determine" or "explain" this if it's different from one commodity to the next? It is incredibly frustrating to here people say value is merely whatever the price of the commodity is, with the arbitrary market dynamics included.
The smarter critique I've seen leveled at SNLT is that SNLT is not computable or decidable, i.e. it cannot be easily and algorithmically determined, and has too many variables influencing it. But just because SNLT is difficult to compute, or perhaps even impossible to compute, doesn't mean that labor inputs aren't the primary determinant of a commodity's value, which is its equilibrium price, which is its price BEFORE the market dynamics cause it to deviate from that equilibrium price by some amount.
>>2060810yes i agree. plato regarded general education as the mark of nobility, but this model broadly expressed today achieves no prestige. the fundamental contradiction which i see is between the *basic* education and vocational pursuits, which operate in tension. one goes to school to "learn", but nothing in particular, until its too late to choose what we want to be qualified in. this is why i think introducing apprenticeship programs early also helps adolescents since it gives them a wage to work with, rather than letting them succumb to the abyss of minimum-wage traps of unskilled labour (which directly stem from an extended adolescence).
i think independence then must conform to a concept of an independent income, which also breaks from the resentful property relation of the parents as masters. however, this then sublates the relation of the parent to the child as a landlord who rents their property to them, as engels and marx understand. we are burdens until 18, and then we become tenants. the unfortunate rebellion from this is a resentment between all parties, which is why the child wants to leave and the parents want to be rid of them, until they offer the new commodity of the grandchild. the 2 questions your parents will ask you are, "do you have a job?" and "do you have a girlfriend?" for this reason. the child seeks equality with his master but it can never be achieved. the oedipus and electra complexes cannot come to a pleasant resolution; it is like an unrequited love.
>>2060970>literally has no argument>>2073245>value is price minus market dynamics.right. so you agree with me then that marx's theory of value (as expressed in wages) is directly analogous to smith's "natural price" of goods (their labour-price) as opposed to their "market price"? the point i make of equating price and value is to see that value is still the "first price" of production, as smith puts it. marx too sees that labour-power is expressed in its value (SNLT) by its price in wages. so value can be equated with price, if indeed, we do *not* consider "value" to be a geist that objectively exists between commodities - which is in itself, a vulgar reading of marx.
>>2073268>Why the FUCK would supply and demand be able to "determine" or "explain" this if it's different from one commodity to the next?it isnt though; markets balance out by competition and by relating to the income of consumers. prices dont vary in any crazy manner under normal conditions. an example is that if i sell a bottle of water for £3 in a poor community and the shop next to me sells it for £1, then supply and demand determines the appropriate price by whoever buys or declines to buy the sold product. more people will buy the cheaper product, leading me to change my price to compete for sales. its quite simple. different markets have different prices for the same products, ergo, markets determine prices (now, marx could see this to be true where he also sees "skilled labour" as being more valuable by nature, but this is not true in many cases as we know, unless we become so marxist that we pretend that the market is objective).
>The smarter critique I've seen leveled at SNLT is that SNLT is not computable or decidablemarx makes it simple for you. he says that one's wage is the value (SNLT) of his labour-power, since it allows him to socially reproduce himself. thats it. to marx, money is the measure of value - today however we do not have sound money, and so to marx, we cannot measure values (since to marx, money acts as the medium of exchange by equating its value with other commodities; x amount of gold = y amount of corn, and so on. he would then see fiat currency as valueless paper). this to me is his theoretical weakness. now, you can attempt to preserve SNLT in marxian concepts like labour-certificates, but marx himself denies that these tokens act as money (or measures of value), since they are only receipts. so this is the dilemma. we have abolished money (to marx) but have not abolished capitalism; thus, i think marx was wrong. a very simple critique. now, ive heard honest marxists say that we have abolished money (many libertarians also share this view), but if this is the case, then it must consequently be admitted that we live in a postcapitalist society, which i do not believe to be true, except by some historical contingency.
>>2073426smith qualifies 2 prices (a natural and market price of goods); marx does the same.
value is still a price, which is why it can only be expressed in the value form.
there is no priceless value however, otherwise you would contradict marx; which is fine i guess, but i would just say youre not being orthodox to the text.
>>2073433>there is no priceless valueuse value
>value is still a pricebut it's not the price you see on the price tag
>>2073438well, use-value to marx is not a value, but is only a value in use (it is concrete labour, not abstract labour). value to marx is a relation between commodities, not the quality of commodities in themselves. value mediates commodities, which is why commodities need a medium of exchange for example. you cant "measure" the usefulness of an item, but only measure what an item is worth in relation to other commodities. this is because as marx sees it, use-values are subjective while exchange-values are objective.
>but it's not the price you see on the price tagexactly; that would be the items market price, but the natural price (or value of labour-power) is expressed in wages, which allow for the worker to reproduce themselves. we can otherwise think of this as the minimum wage. profits then can only be achieved by selling a product at its market price which exceeds its natural price; or as smith notes at the end of the first book of the wealth of nations; "profit is the enemy of labour", which is obviously followed up on by marx.
>>2073434marx admits the exchangeability of commodities under a debased currency, but he would see it as barter (or the relative mode of exchange; as opposed to the universal equivalent mode in money). this is because commodities to marx in this schema become directly related, rather than mediated by an equivalent. in periods of hyperinflation for example, a commodity becomes more valuable than the actual currency (i remember one witty though incorrect tweet from stefan molyneux in 2020; "when your currency is toilet paper, toilet paper becomes currency").
so again, marx does not deny the exchangeability of commodities in the absense of money, but he would see it as barter, or as he says at the end of the section on the value form: "the commodity-form is the germ of the money-form".
>>2073480> that would be the items market price, but the natural price (or value of labour-power) is expressed in wagesbut the value of the commodity is greater than what is paid to the workers who created it. That's why profit exists, which capitalists reinvest in expanding production.
>in periods of hyperinflation for example, a commodity becomes more valuable than the actual currencyMore correctly worded, the currency loses purchasing power relative to the commodities
>>2073419>it isnt though; markets balance out by competition and by relating to the income of consumers. prices dont vary in any crazy manner under normal conditions. an example is that if i sell a bottle of water for £3 in a poor community and the shop next to me sells it for £1, then supply and demand determines the appropriate price by whoever buys or declines to buy the sold product.You misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about two different commodities of the same type (i.e. two water bottles), but different types commodities. The equilibrium price of of a bottle of water might be §1 for example, but the equilibrium price of a bottle of shampoo might be §3.
Supply and demand do not explain the equilibrium price, they explain deviation from it. There is a reason that when two different kinds of commodities are in supply/demand equilibrium they still have different prices, and that reason is largely the amount of labor, on average, that went into producing them.
>>2073434>>2073480i will share with you an interesting story to show my own perspective on money. i recall in a book titled "the bitcoin standard", it took a quasi-marxist approach to grounding the fundamental value of money, as the self-limited store of value, which is limited by its socially necessary labour.
an example is used where a tribal people used seashells to trade, but these seashells came from far away, and with limited storage, they could only carry so many. people would die on these expeditions and so on. so then, these conditions of exraction simulated the social properties of mining gold. high investment with scarce reward. this makes the value of these items dense.
now one day, the british came and brought many, many seashells and bought out the village; this was a form of enslavement in the terms of monopoly.
now, when the people chose the imported currency, they imagined that the value of the currency was a quality of the object itself, like how a goldbug thinks of gold as inherently valuable - but what makes gold more valuable than silver is its scarcity. this is why there have been times where more gold than silver has been present in societies, leading to its higher valuation.
now, the austrian and marxist school i would say have identical opinions on money here; that a "store of value" must be self-limited as a social mechanism by its high investment. what differs however is their politics.
the idea of a gold standard to marx is economically useful, while to mises or menger, a gold standard is politically useful. scarcity means the monopoly of power but also a universal measure of value.
what is missed between both however is the principle of scarcity. in truth, it is only scarcity which grants the "inherent value" of a medium of exchange. the valuable element of seashells is not the blood spilt to gather them, but their relative untransportability.
i read a blog post from a keynesian once who quoted menger as declaring that cutting the money supply increases its value - but then continued to say that the money supply at a certain rate, must be fixed.
so then, in the cases of classical and neoclassical economics, they both permit the monopoly power over finance, but deny its *political* viability.
reading capital vol 1 you get this similar vacuity where it concerns a truly *political* economy, which is a discourse ignored for marx's market mysticism, which is a poor anachronism of today's postkeynesian moment.
so then, the value of money is in its supply for commodities in demand. marx's "crisis of overproduction" is keynes' "crisis of underconsumption". whoever controls the central bank controls the nation. this is the true political consciousness. the lolberts want to end the fed, while we should want to appropriate it.
>>2073538yes, the market value is greater, but its natural price remains the same. marx sees this as C-M-C, or the rades of equivalent values, where M-C-M' or the capital circuit only begins when money is injected into the economy. so then, labour can only be exploited where an economy is permitted to expand (by positive consumption), not in the act of employment itself.
this is why i think the political term of "useful labour" is important, to see what is "necessary" in the economy, but marx fails to properly qualify this since he sees all wage-work as value-producing, except when he doesnt, but gives no formula for this.
he tries but fails to identify the proletariat.
>>2073548>There is a reason that when two different kinds of commodities are in supply/demand equilibrium they still have different prices, and that reason is largely the amount of labor, on average, that went into producing them.no. its about how much that labour costs.
>>2073553you cant have M-C-M if you have no M. that is a problem marxists have to deal with.
>>2073592non fiat currencies can be "redeemed" for a certain amount of a fixed commodity like a precious metal, but what amount they can be "redeemed" for varies over time as the market price of that commodity fluctuates.
Meanwhile fiat currencies can "purchase" a certain amount of a commodity like a precious metal, but that amount that can be "purchased" by fiat varies over time as the market price of that commodity fluctuates.
the real difference between "purchasing" a commodity with a currency, and "redeeming" a currency for a commodity is purely semantic. Fiat simply disguises the material basis of money.
The idea fiat is backed by "belief" or "trust" or "force" is an illusion disguising the mode and relations of production.
>>2073614yes i agree, except that marx doesnt. to marx, the medium of exchange must be a measure of value. again, he permits the exchangeability of commodities, but where they are not measured by a mediator, they are immediately compared. fiat has no value to marx (SNLT) so cannot measure values, and so then, to marx, value can only be measured by a relative mode of exchange, or barter (C-C) in the absence of money (M).
marx in chapter 3 of capital vol 1 for example sees paper money as viable, as long as it is a receipt for its money-value. the paper itself however is valueless. today we only have paper, which IS simply functional by trust and force.
to marx, money must have inherent value, which is a false idea as we discover. the scarcity of the gold standard is primarily a political strategy.
>>2073657there is no functional difference between redemption of a non-fiat currency by a commodity and exchange of a fiat currency for a commodity except for the government serving as a "guarantor of value" in the former case and not serving as a "guarantor of value" in the latter case. It is ironic that people say that "trust in government" is what gives a fiat currency its value, because it is precisely in the case of fiat that the government's role as a regulator of a currency's value is removed entirely.
For example, just because the US government can no longer "guarantee" that a dollar can be redeemed for a certain amount of gold (which fluctuated even under the gold standard as any gold price chart will show) doesn't mean that a dollar no longer has an exchange rate with a certain amount of Gold. The Gold standard was done away with in Aug 1971, but dollars could still be
exchanged for gold both before and after Aug 1971. And both before and after 1971 the price of Gold in dollars fluctuated. The only difference is that the government itself no longer guaranteed the currency's redeemability and yet I am laughably told by mainstream economists that fiat currency is backed by "trust in the government issuing it."
Also both before and after 1971 the value of a dollar went down if the government circulated too many of them.
So what happened? The fiat is somehow "backed by trust in the issuing government" despite the government "no longer guaranteeing its value'
How can a currency backed by nothing have any demand? Because you have to pay for groceries, utilities, rent, or mortgage, or property tax, schooling, etc. In a word, you have to subsist, and your subsistence has a value determined by its SNLT even if the currency (allegedly) doesn't. You say fiat isn't a medium of exchange, yet just like non-fiat it has a rate of exchange with commodities.
>marx doesn't agree with thisnone of this really has that much of an impact on marx. commodities still have SNLT even if fiat does not. But I suspect that fiat does, it's just hidden through a series of socially constructed obfuscations. Duhring's "theory of force" in monetary form.
>>2073694your ereader is shit if it only accepts one file format. I have an ereader from 2011 and it opens epubs, pdfs, and djvu
>>2073709>For example, just because the US government can no longer "guarantee" that a dollar can be redeemed for a certain amount of gold (which fluctuated even under the gold standard as any gold price chart will show) doesn't mean that a dollar no longer has an exchange rate with a certain amount of Gold.yes, because fiat is just a globally traded currency with a floating exchange rate. it is not tied to commodities as such, but seeks to capture markets to increase its demand. this is the mechanism of its value, which is why the UK and USA killed saddam hussein and qadafhi for example, since they wanted to trade their oil in euros, or even to leverage trade by a gold standard.
>I am laughably told by mainstream economists that fiat currency is backed by "trust in the government issuing it."well "fiat" means by decree, so they are right that fiat currency basically entails a monopoly of the domestic use of a currency. this monopoly of power also makes it a product which can be demanded since trade is only permissible with this token. this is also the colonial method of forcing your currency on a foreign population; central banks then operate by imperial measures, as lenin evokes.
>How can a currency backed by nothing have any demand? by the barrell of a gun
>In a word, you have to subsistsure
>and your subsistence has a value determined by its SNLT even if the currency (allegedly) doesn'tno, no, no. here you jump the gun.
>You say fiat isn't a medium of exchange, yet just like non-fiat it has a rate of exchange with commodities. no, i say that fiat *is* a valid medium of exchange; i consider it money, while marx does not. my point is to say that marx's theory of money and therefore value, is wrong.
>none of this really has that much of an impact on marx. commodities still have SNLT even if fiat does not.no, it matters massively. to marx, value cannot be measured outside of price, which exists in the money form by exchange-value. money is the measure of value, so if you cant measure value, you cant claim its quantitative relation; this is why marx needs something to mediate it which embodies SNLT. fiat does not embody SNLT therefore to marx it cannot be a measure of value; or, money. this matters because without sound money, value cannot be calculated to marx.
this is not a problem for me however since i equate economic value and price as synonymous concepts.
>But I suspect that fiat does, it's just hidden through a series of socially constructed obfuscations. Duhring's "theory of force" in monetary form.lets say it doesnt possess SNLT. where does that leave you? do you accept the criticism of marx?
>>2073774>to marx, value cannot be measured outside of priceValue is measurable as socially necessary labor time. If you can find out the average amount of time a society takes to produce a commodity, that amount of time is the measure of the commodity's value.
If X amount of Commodity A and Y amount of Commodity B both take Z amount of SNLT to produce, then they have equal value!
Marx does not require that money itself embody SNLT to function as a measure of value. Money serves as a medium of exchange and a unit of account, which allows for the comparison of values.
Marx distinguishes between value and price. Value is the underlying labor content, while price is the monetary expression of value
plus factors beyond production. Prices can fluctuate due to supply and demand, currency debasement, and other factors, but they tend to gravitate around the value determined by SNLT.
In the very beginning of capital volume 1 Marx talks about the accidental form of value. If 20 yards of linen are worth 1 coat, then they will both be worth the same amount of currency, whether that currency is fiat or not, because they both require the same amount of SNLT to produce.
If Marx had lived to see the Nixon shock I doubt he would have abandoned SNLT or his theory of value, he would have just added to his theory and described fiat in terms of fictitious capital, advanced forms of commodity fetishism, state intervention, crises, and capitalism's internal contradictions, and TRPF.
>>2073774Marx explores the idea of metallic money being replaced with paper symbols in Chapter 3 and mentions the future possibility of a credit backed currency (of which fiat is technically). I think too much emphasis is put on the gold standard as owning gold at all was illegal for Americans before 1975
>One thing is necessary, however: the symbol of money must have its own objective social validity. The paper acquires this by its forced currency. The state’s compulsion can only be of any effect within that internal sphere of circulation which is circumscribed by the boundaries of a given community, but it is also only within that sphere that money is completely absorbed in its function as a medium of circulation, and is therefore able to receive, in the form of paper money, a purely functional mode of existence in which it is externally separated from its metallic substance.
>The fact that the circulation of money itself splits the nominal content of coins away from their real content, dividing their metallic existence from their functional existence, this fact implies the latent possibility of replacing metallic money with tokens made of some other material, I.e. symbols which would perform the function of coins…
>The fact that this minimum mass continually undergoes changes in its constituent parts, or that the pieces of gold of which consists are constantly being replaced by other pieces, naturally causes no change either in its amount or in the continuity with which it flows around the sphere of circulation. It can therefore be replaced by paper symbols [i.e. inconvertible ones].
>The weight of metal in the silver and copper tokens is arbitrarily fixed by law. When in currency, they wear away even more rapidly than gold coins. Hence their functions are totally independent of their weight, and consequently of all value. The function of gold as coin becomes completely independent of the metallic value of that gold. Therefore things that are relatively without value, such as paper notes, can serve as coins in its place. This purely symbolic character is to a certain extent masked in metal tokens. In paper money it stands out plainly. In fact, ce n’est que le premier pas qui coûte.
<We allude here only to inconvertible paper money issued by the State and having compulsory circulation. It has its immediate origin in the metallic currency. Money based upon credit implies on the other hand conditions, which, from our standpoint of the simple circulation of commodities, are as yet totally unknown to us. But we may affirm this much, that just as true paper money takes its rise in the function of money as the circulating medium, so money based upon credit takes root spontaneously in the function of money as the means of payment.
>The weight of metal in the silver and copper tokens is arbitrarily fixed by law. When in currency, they wear away even more rapidly than gold coins. Hence their functions are totally independent of their weight, and consequently of all value. The function of gold as coin becomes completely independent of the metallic value of that gold. Therefore things that are relatively without value, such as paper notes, can serve as coins in its place. This purely symbolic character is to a certain extent masked in metal tokens. In paper money it stands out plainly. In fact, ce n’est que le premier pas qui coûte.
>We allude here only to inconvertible paper money issued by the State and having compulsory circulation. It has its immediate origin in the metallic currency. Money based upon credit implies on the other hand conditions, which, from our standpoint of the simple circulation of commodities, are as yet totally unknown to us. But we may affirm this much, that just as true paper money takes its rise in the function of money as the circulating medium, so money based upon credit takes root spontaneously in the function of money as the means of payment. >>2073957>Value is measurable as socially necessary labor time. which to marx only exists *between* commodities in exchange, which is why the most elementary value form is barter (C-C). value is not an independent variable as he says, but is a *social* concept first derived from the division of labour.
>If you can find out the average amount of time a society takes to produce a commodity, that amount of time is the measure of the commodity's value.but it can only be expressed in relativity to other commodities; the value of one commodity reflects the value of another.
>Marx does not require that money itself embody SNLT to function as a measure of value.yes he absolutely does. skip to chapter 3. what exists in the absence of money to marx is only a relative form of equivalence, not a universal form of equivalence by which all values can be measured.
>Marx distinguishes between value and price.only as the invisible and invisible aspect of the same thing (in equilibrium). where price exceeds value it is still only within the closed circuit of C-M-C, unless surplus-value is exploited, where it then becomes M-C-M'.
>they tend to gravitate around the value determined by SNLT.and how is this value expressed? by wages.
>If Marx had lived to see the Nixon shock I doubt he would have abandoned SNLT or his theory of valuehe would just claim that we live in a barter society which possesses no universal equivalent. the issue with this is that if there is no M, there can be no M-C-M'.
>>2075073>Marx explores the idea of metallic money being replaced with paper symbols in Chapter 3yes, only as far as the paper is redeemable for that gold. he explicitly says in that same chapter that the medium of exchange must be valuable in itself or *represent* value, otherwise it is worthless.
>and mentions the future possibility of a credit backed currency (of which fiat is technically)he also calls this paradigm fictitious capital in vol. 3, but his polemic is that credit and money are not the same thing; and that credit must be converted into money for it to be entered into the value relation for it to be a self-related value, otherwise it is just a valueless phantom. we did actually see this crisis in the great depression where the fractional reserves of gold were redeemed and the world lost its money, precisely because credit and money had this categorical separation. so he is correct where it concerns the contingencies of his contemporary capitalism, but he still has no theory of credit *becoming* money, since this is a contradictory notion to him. thats why he calls it a "fiction". this is why i claim that an orthodox reading of the text leads to the conclusion that we have abolished money.
>your citationyes, marx is making the basic comment that the symbol of value is a mask of its "real content" elsewhere. this is also what the other anon in this thread is saying; that fiat must embody SNLT for it to be commensurable with commodities. i would actually invert marx on this point, where he says at the beginning of chapter 3 that money is not the thing which commensurates; i would instead posit that it *is* the object of commensuration, and i do this by a rejection of marx's barterism. i dont believe that values are determined by the direct comparison of commodities, but that preference and contingency rules in exchange (since markets are largely irrational, and can only be irrational because there is no equivalence of values, since "value" is not an objective entity).
>>2074186batman accumulates money; joker destroys it. mortal enemies.
>>2075390>but it can only be expressed in relativity to other commoditiesIf it takes 3 hours of labor time on average to produce X amount of commodity Y, then X amount of commodity Y has a SNLT of 3 hours, regardless of any other commodity. It is entirely possible to know the SNLT of X amount of commodity Y without involving any other commodities by simply taking the average amount of labor time necessary to produce X commodity of Y. It is an emergent and statistical property of social labor. Just because something is an emergent property or a social statistic doesn't mean it isn't important. The fact that SNLT gets abstracted into the elementary form of value, then the expanded form of value, then the general form of value, then the money form, then I suppose also today's fiat form, does not mean that the SNLT is not the commodity's value. You don't
need other commodities to measure it, you just need to know the SNLT of the commodity to know its value, it's just that the value is useless to know unless you are exchanging things. Price is only practical insofar as it is faster to use money than to take a statistical accounting of a commodity's SNLT plus whatever non-production factors are influencing its price (which is different from its value because price takes more into account than value does). It's not that value can only be known through exchange, it is that exchange is what makes value relevant.
>he would just claim that we live in a barter society which possesses no universal equivalent. the issue with this is that if there is no M, there can be no M-C-M'.Fiat money is still money. We do not live in a barter society. That's ridiculous on its face. I doubt Marx would say that because Marx points out very early on in Capital that primitive societies (i.e. hunter gatherers) only bartered with people they did not know directly. This has since then been proven through archeological and sociological evidence (Humphrey, 1985). Within the tribe objects were held more or less in common. Barter was
between small
societies of hunter gatherers, not an economy within hunter gatherer society or a common way of exchanging objects as individuals. And modern society is hardly "barter" just because of fiat. Barter involves a double coincidence of wants and is highly impractical. Barter is much more impractical than fiat.
There is still a medium of exchange, a universal equivalent, which fiat is used for. Barter lacks a universal equivalent, a means of exchange.
Anyway I have already been over how the distinction between fiat and non-fiat is meaningless because the so called lack of a "gold standard" or any other commodity standard is simply an act of deregulation, not of regulation. It is the government giving up on dictating the exchange value of bank notes with precious metals. It lets the market control that, which in practice, the market always controlled that and the government just played catchup. You look at a chart of gold prices and the price of gold in dollars fluctuates during the non fiat period as well. The bourgeois economists, the high priests of capital, by sleight of hand, say that fiat is "derives its value from trust in the government issuing the currency" when really, both before and after currency becomes "fiat," it has an exchange value relative to commodities, and is simply used as a medium of exchange. You can still trade in your dollars for Gold according to a market rate, you just have to do it with the private sector instead of the public sector. That's it. That's the whole difference. Every commodity that fiat is exchangeable with still has a socially necessary labor time independent of other commodities. This does not contradict Marx but proves him right.
We have not abolished money, we have merely outgrown the non-fiat forms of it most common in Marx's time. We do not live in a barter society, that is silly.
>>2075425>It's not that value can only be known through exchange, it is that exchange is what makes value relevant.no.
you are confusing the concept of SNLT with the general process of production. SNLT only exists in the value relation, which only exists with commodities in exchange (which is why to marx, SNLT *determines* exchange by commensurability).
there is no value in nature, but only in political economy. this is why communists want to abolish money, so as to overcome the law of value. marxists however often want to merely sublate value, like marx attempts to in critique of the gotha program. this is because marxists cling to the electship of being proletarian martyrs and not free spirits.
>Fiat money is still money. We do not live in a barter society. i agree; marx disagrees.
>Barter involves a double coincidence of wants and is highly impractical. Barter is much more impractical than fiat.well many critics of fiat would say that the debts which fiat racks up can be compared against a lack of securitised assets, and so then we have a double coincidence of wants in essence, where for example, if china flooded domestic markets with their dollars, then the locals would have no purchasing power - like how fractional reserve banking works until everyone seeks to redeem their gold.
this is why we have separate markets, like retail and wholesale for example, where you are limited in what youre able to buy by the stocked materials. if you tried to buy out a retail store you would be denied since it closes the market.
this black hole of empty credit also exists in savings, which is why taxes on the rich dont generally harm them, since they have more money than they can spend (which is why they waste their money anyway).
so what in saying is that fiat in the abstract does not have a 1:1 ratio with goods (which is why when fiat fails, people prefer to just possess commodities; this is the violation of keynes' liquidity preference, which is also the original perversion of goldbugs in their commodity-fetishism).
but my definition of money is not simply that which mediates between a double coincidence of wants, so "my opinion changes when the facts change" and does not endlessly refer back to the 19th century. money is a "liquid" concept which needs consideration.
>exchange rates and valuethe value of fiat is in the control of its supply in relation to demand; that is where its value is derived and why we say that the government regulates its value (since it creates and destroys money at will). my meaning is not that the government price-fixes, but that it supply-fixes its own sovereign product. in a free market of currency, the dollar might fail, but we dont live in free markets of currencies, as proven by saddam and qadafhi. also proven by the *monopoly* power governments have over their intellectual property.
>Every commodity that fiat is exchangeable with still has a socially necessary labor time independent of other commodities.>independentmarx does not conceive of independent values. this is why you are confused. values exist in relations of exchange. if i make things and never sell them, they can serve as use-values, but not exchange-values.
>this does not contradict Marx but proves him right.nope.
>We do not live in a barter society, that is silly.what is marx's definition of money? a COMMODITY which measures values according to its own SNLT. firstly, fiat is not a commodity. secondly, it has no SNLT. thirdly, if there is no M, then we only have C-C.
what is compared in values thus can only be commodities as they directly interrelate, since fiat has no embodied value - unless you claim it does, which is conjecture. so according to marx, we live in a barter economy, which is clearly false as you say - so marx is wrong. simple.
>>2075439very good point!
>>2075470>SNLT only exists in the value relationit exists as a statistic of production. Even if capitalism were abolished and money were abolished commodities still take an average amount of labor time to produce for the given conditions of a society.
> agree; marx disagrees.How can Marx disagree about something he didn't even live to see?
>well many critics of fiat would say that the debts which fiat racks upthe fiat doesn't rack up debt, the nation racks up debt
>>2075481>it exists as a statistic of production.only abstractly. not in the marxian sense. this is why i say you are confused.
>Even if capitalism were abolished and money were abolished commodities still take an average amount of labor time to produce for the given conditions of a society. yes but this would not reflect "value", or SNLT.
this is also why i say that value-as-price can be accounted for as the costs of production, since this also has a postcapitalist concept of logistics, while LTV posits labour and value as synonymous in the mode of production, which corrupts both the concept of labour and value.
>marx never saw fiathe says that money most possess SNLT, so he would disagree that fiat is money.
>>2075511what is the SNLT of a government bond?
0 with 10% interest = 0.
so how can fiat measure values? it doesnt. it *creates* values (prices) by mediating exchanges.
marx imagines it invertedly, whereby a commodity's value determines its equivalent exchange with other commodities. to marx, commodities create money.
but money itself is not a commodity, so is not entered into this dialectic.
a government bond is an investment, like gambling or betting on the stock market. are these activities the trading of commodities? i would rather see it as M-M. the formal contract which mediates the exchange is not a commodity. you can exchange without exchanging a commodity.
now, marx in capital vol 2 sees M-M+ as the drive of capital's accumulation, but interposes this with the commodity of labour-power (or "productive capital" - P). but no labour-power is utilised in a bet or monetary investment, so is in the relative sense M-M+, but socially is M-M. this is also his criticism of bourgeois economy in chapter 4 of capital vol. 1; that merchant capital imagines a world where profits are entirely relative and not socially considered.
this point by marx is his political relevance, but as i say previously, he tries and fails to ground the proletariat in a holistic concept of labour-power. we still struggle today to determine the "necessary" base of social production.
>>2075621you endlessly repeat yourself, and so cause me to repeat myself as well
i'll make it simple for you:
value in marx is "human labour in the abstract" which is rendered as SNLT and is commodified as labour-power in the wage relation. wages denote the value (SNLT) of labour-power since they allow this commodity to reproduce itself. here, the value of labour-power is synonymous with what adam smith calls the "natural price" or "first price" of production in labour, as opposed to its "market price" determined by supply and demand. wages are the value of labour-power by being its price of reproduction.
therefore, values have prices, and the value of labour-power is its wage-price. to marx, prices are the monetary expression of the "value form" of commodities which entail the equivalence of values.
this is achieved by value being mediated in a universal equivalent by which all other commodities self-relate to. x,y,z relate to a. this "a" is money.
this function is money's "measure of value". value can only be measured by this mediating commodity, and in its absence, value is unknowable - like how one cannot measure heat with a microscope.
today however, our money has no value (SNLT) since it takes no labour to extract it, and so in marxist terms, value is immeasurable. there is no universal equivalent. with no M, there can only be C-C (barter).
however, if we instead see the value of commodity-money in its relative scarcity (its ability to be demanded) then we see why gold standards can operate. the value of gold thus is *not* in its labour for extraction, but its scarcity. the extracting labours are its value's contingency, not its object.
for example, there was a tribe who traded in seashells, and this supply was limited because of technical circumstances. the limit was built in to its extraction. when the british showed up one day and delivered mounds of seashells they were able to fool the villagers who assumed the value was *within* the item, when it was actually in the relation to the item's scarcity, and thus its ability to be demanded.
so then, marx's fallacy is the same; that he properly sees gold's scarcity as its value, but by contingency of its high investment. it is physical scarcity, not physical endurance which is its essential property.
now, you imply that the government's monopoly powers obscure the operations to maintain sovereignty as its SNLT which is a smart answer, but is incalculable, unless you consider prices to objectively refer to values (by their commensuration), which is a fine, marxist approach. but then we have the issues of different markets having different prices, which would have to be accounted for as different values being possessed, which i disbelieve.
so then, prices are values either way. either if you believe in markets to be rational, or irrational. wages are the "first price" of production, which all market prices refer back to.
>>2075621>>2075634most simply:
"values" are natural prices
"prices" are market prices
but both are prices
>>2075642The magnitude of values is expressed in the monetary form of value as equilibrium (or natural) prices, but the true substance of value is socially necessary labor time, which is measurable not only in the monetary form of price, but also as a statistic of production. This is obvious from the definition of SNLT, which is rendered as
time. Only under capitalism, under the wages system, is it expressed as wages, but under a full communist system with economic planning and no more wages system, you can still find out the SNLT needed to produce a product of labor, even when it is no longer a commodity with an exchange value. Your hyperfocus on fiat is irrelevant to Marx being right about the commodity getting its value from SNLT. At the end of the day, a firm producing commodities slower than its society's SNLT is going to drive that firm from the market for being inefficient and unprofitable, and a firm producing commodities faster than societ's SNLT is going to set a new standard for the industry to catch up with, and net that firm a lot of profits for the time being.
I repeat myself because I think it's important! I don't think Marx is wrong, and even if he failed to predict shit like the Nixon Shock which happened nearly 90 years after he died, it doesn't negate the fact that the working class need to organize to wage revolutionary struggle and put an end to this mode of production.
>>2075672>but the true substance of value is socially necessary labor timeno, the "substance of value" is use-value in concrete labour
SNLT is the "magnitude of value" in abstract labour (or labour power)
>which is measurable not only in the monetary form of price, but also as a statistic of production. only abstractly. and look, marx wanted to sublate capitalist production, but where "value" is concerned and is equated with SNLT, that only leaves it to be measured in price, not as an empirical entity as such.
you can have SNLT abstractly, but just dont call it "value".
>Your hyperfocus on fiat is irrelevant to Marx being right about the commodity getting its value from SNLTit isnt, because marx thinks that machines cant produce values, but i do, which is why automation is possible in capitalist society. marx lived in a time where money could not be freely given to allow for consumption, which led him to thinking that all money had to be "earned". today it doesnt, thanks to fiat. my general point is that marx is a product of his time.
>i dont think marx is wrongwell i do, but thats just my opinion. look, you can think what you like, but i still disagree.
>it doesn't negate the fact that the working class need to organize to wage revolutionary struggle and put an end to this mode of production.marx didnt invent the socialist movement, and a true socialism will not be marxist. so i dont have the emotional dependence on him.
>>2075746well it is quite clear; marxism itself begins, not as a criticism of capitalism, but as a criticism of socialism which still continues today with endless sectarianism. the mark of "scientific socialism" is that it seeks to set itself apart from other solutions.
reading marx it is also quite clear that his idea of socialism is as a sublation of capitalism, which is in effect, the completion of the bourgeois revolution - or of resolving the contradictions of capital through its self-negation (in hegelian style).
i myself instead see socialism as a vulgar and spontaneous solution to problems in society, and not a critical artiface of inaction. my theoretical pinnacle is not the "proletariat", but the "people", and this is its universal element.
likewise, the condition of the working class should not be in self-identity, but self-abolition. one must be more than a worker to be a citizen of a free state.
and yes, perhaps my statism is a heresy too
in all this, i simply say that what is true must at least be intuitive. reading thousands of pages of a book doesnt make you a revolutionary; connecting to the common spirit does. marxism is unpopular because it is inaccessible, and so, it is unworthy.
this is barring its factual incorrectness.
>>2075751>barterno, my claim is that this is the *marxist* conclusion, not my own.
>machine valueif men create value, why not machines? marx's answer is because machines dont exchange their labour as a commodity, so are in effect, artificial slaves. but my position is that if we live in an increasingly subsidised and automated capitalism where profits accumulate, then machines must create value. again, marx's limit is that the idea of UBI was impossible to him.
>marx was wrongyes. but he was also right on others.
>marx thought money had to be earnedyes. "free money" is an alien concept to marx
>fiat abolished moneyif it has no SNLT then it cant measure values, according to marx. but thats because he misunderstands money and value.
>true socialism will not be marxistyes, because how can a universal movement have one signifier and one tradition? any non-marxist socialist here is hounded for not submitting to the idol. so marxism is anti-socialist in effect by pretending to be the one true socialism. true socialism is having a plurality of socialisms.
>>2075550>to marx, commodities create money. but money itself is not a commodityin this post you say money is not a commodity
>>2075470>what is marx's definition of money? a COMMODITY which measures values according to its own SNLT.but in this post you say money is a commodity. you are obviously very confused on what Marx's ideas are actually like.
>>2059757was the post really that difficult to understand?
<people like Cockshott have tried to formalize Marx empirically by fortifying his findings with mathematics and subtracting from him what they see as the obfuscatory nature of the Hegelian dialectic.In science/math fields of study, to formalize generally refers to the process of translating a concept, idea, or problem into a precise, structured, and systematic form that can be clearly understood, manipulated, and analyzed. This often involves using formal languages, mathematical notation, logical systems, or computational models.
When useful ideas are discovered in a non-formalized pre-scientific form by philosophers and laymen, scientists try to formalize those ideas.
Cockshott tried to formalize Marx by grounding his ideas in modern math and science and removing the more philosophical mumbo jumbo inspired by Hegel.
However ideas can also be formalized in legal theory. i.e. the ideas of economists, mathematicians, etc. which are doable in the real world will inevitably have to take a legalistic form if they are to be performed legally, with permits, licenses and so on.
In another post it was elaborated:
< Marx describes the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie in economic terms, but he never elaborates on the legal disguises given this exploitation by the bourgeoisie, because that's beyond the scope of his analysis. But in reality the way exploitation is disguised by law really does differ from nation to nation, and understanding this might be useful. Many of the great revolutionary leaders were aloso lawyers: Robespierre, Lenin, Castro >>2075758>well it is quite clear; marxism itself begins, not as a criticism of capitalism, but as a criticism of socialism which still continues today with endless sectarianism. the mark of "scientific socialism" is that it seeks to set itself apart from other solutions.We never returned to the pre-Marxist utopian socialism of the Owenites, Saint-Simoneans, Ricardians, et cetera, because it was proven to have failed utterly in its aims. Socialists of all stripes still collectively pursue their aims in different ways. The complaining about "endless sectarianism" is only relevant insofar as people of the same tendency block each others' action over minor differences. But different organizations and social movements have major differences, and are split on that basis.
In fact, Marxists end up entering into alliances with other forces who are in many ways opposed on ideological and programmatic orientations. It happens out of necessity a lot. But the Russian revolutionary Alexander Parvus drew up five rules in 1905:
<“1) Do not merge organisations. March separately but strike together. 2) Do not abandon our own political demands. 3) Do not conceal divergences of interest. 4) Watch our ally as we would watch an enemy. 5) Concern ourselves more with using the situation created by the struggle than with keeping an ally.”Number 3 is especially relevant. What you decry as "endeless sectarianism" is perhaps, in many instances, simply people refusing to conceal divergences of interest.
>no, my claim is that this is the *marxist* conclusion, not my own.Please cite Marx claiming anywhere in his work that a barter society can exist, let alone that a society using fiat currency is a barter society. The barter society is an allegation of Smith. A just-so story that existed before anthropology and sociology proved the contrary. Barter takes places
between primitive societies, but never as the fundamental basis for exchange
within primitive societies, where some form of collective ownership is usually the norm.
>if men create value, why not machines? marx's answer is because machines dont exchange their labour as a commodity, so are in effect, artificial slaves.Machines don't have labor. Machines are objects created by labor. They are maintained by labor. They are constant capital, not variable capital. They have use value, and exchange value. They are not anywhere near sentience, at least not yet. I could concede machines being workers only under the condition that they were actually meaningfully alive, At which point the distinction between man and machine would long have been sublated, but we are nowhere near those historical conditions. Marx doesn't even attribute this to animals:
>We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will.Machines are just fulfilling the instructions laid out by humans in their construction. Even machine "learning" algorithms which can, in an illusory fashion, use very large statistical models curated by humans in advance to
seemingly (but not really) produce outputs that resemble what a human would create intuitively, are not actually realizing any internal purpose or desire or economic incentive to create a useful object with exchange value in order to receive a wage, as a worker does. They are merely fulfilling instructions given by a human, using statistical models curated by a human.
>>2075987i am confused? you just have bad reading comprehension.
marx's belief is that money is a commodity
my belief is that it is not
very simple to understand
marx thinks money must have SNLT, yet today it does not. a contradiction in his thinking.
>>2076453>pre-marxian socialismsim not appealing to a pre-marxist socialism, but merely to a non-marxist socialist possibility. to me, marxism cannot be socialism as such, because inists upon its own signifier, as the holy science of "marxism". you are either a marxist or a socialist proper, thus. but this is just my own sporadic criticism.
>Please cite Marx claiming anywhere in his work that a barter society can existi merely deduce from the variables he puts forth, that in the primitive, or relative value form, we have a functional barter system where values are directly compared - this later develops into money by which values self-relate to a universal equivalent. this is why money is the measure of value - but where money has no value (SNLT) it ceases to be money, and so cannot measure values; so then, how is exchange commensurable today in a marxist sense? only by the relative value form, or barter (C-C). if theres no M, there can be no M-C-M as i say. here is where an honest person recognises the contradiction in marx and must at the very least become a revisionist. my point isnt that marx would think that we live in a barter system, but only that an orthodox reading of his text would lead marx himself to admit that he was wrong. he would burn das kapital and start again.
>Machines don't have labor. Machines are objects created by labor. They are maintained by labor. They are constant capital, not variable capital.anthropocentric metaphysics. a man and machine in production are both forms of capital; both instruments of production. marx's obscenity is the idea that some element of man's soul gives him the dignity of a special labour, but this is not the case, which is why a more proper interpretation is that man creates values because he exchanges his labour-power while the machine does not. value is a social construct. it is the price mechanism, as ive been explaining - there are no values in nature, of which man and machine have equal parts. therefore, if we pay for the products of machine labour, they produce values. marxists melt at this basic logic. and if this is not the case then how do machines create profits today without creating surplus-value? marx copes by saying that automation is basically an unsustainable pyramid scheme, but thats obviously not the case, since if you give people money to consume, you sustain the capital relation. this is only possible with fiat ofc. so then, today's economy was unthinkable to marx, but no man is beyond his own time.
>I could concede machines being workers only under the condition that they were actually meaningfully aliveslave-master logic. just like how blacks used to be 3/5ths of a human, right?
>Marx doesn't even attribute this to animalsyes, because animals are slaves and so arent paid for their labour, but are just invested tools of production. they *produce*, but dont produce values, since their labour is not redeemed - just like how a kid who does chores or a wife who cleans the house does work, but does not "labour" as marx would have it. this is why i wrote all that time ago that nature and society is based on inherent relations of exploitation - even in how we must eat other creatures to live.
>are not actually realizing any internal purpose or desire or economic incentive to create a useful objectagain, you are metaphysicalising value as this mystical quality of intention. you and marx both miss the point. the difference between forced and paid labour is the difference between a slave and wage-slave.
>They are merely fulfilling instructions given by a human, using statistical models curated by a human.all labour is just following orders.
Think about bread. Bread is basic and simple and should be really, really easy. How much bread do you make? Should be a simple task.
So how often do you post on facebook about bread? How often does anyone you know ever post on the internet or social media of any kind about bread? Basically never. We're flying blind. Ok, no problem. There are other ways to estimate beyond social media inputs! But what kind of bread… should we be making white or wheat bread? How thick should the slices be? Whole grain? Rye? How should it be baked? what about unleavened bread for the religious? Baguettes? Rolls? Potato Bread? Naan style bread? Pitas? How exactly do we calculate how much to produce of all these different things? There are hundreds of kinds of bread in that wikipedia list, and tens of thousands of types is probably more accurate when you look at all the sub varieties. How do you calculate all of that? How do you calculate the changes in taste as certain types of bread rise and fall in popularity? New preference observations need to be found every single week at minimum, and probably more often than that. Nobody's posting about it on social media certainly. Sales data takes far too long to aggregate and is far too incomplete to make meaningful decisions, from personal experience in the consumer data aggregation industry.
Furthermore, how do you decide which bread goes where? Which cities are bread-lovers and bread-haters? Which types of bread belong in which ratios in which cities? How is that broken down by neighborhood? Even furthermore, how do you price all of this? How can you possibly organize the logistics of it all from a central planning computer? How do you organize innovation? How do you make decisions about who should be producing it and where production should be located? How do you shift production among the thousands of types of bread when certain inputs have supply shocks (this year has a great rye and barley harvest, but a poor wheat harvest)?
This is literally impossible, and as I said above we aren't even within several orders of magnitude of being able to calculate 'bread'. Much less the entire economy of goods and services. We know how communist societies on a large scale actually deal with this - they have basically one kind of bread, and it's the same everywhere, and it's crappy quality, and there are frequent shortages/surpluses anyways because even something that simple is hard to calculate. And eventually they just change to a market-based approach, because markets are wonderful magic that do all this for us.
>>2076849>Which cities are bread-lovers and bread-haters?who the fuck hates bread
retarded premise
>>2076836>anthropocentric metaphysics. a man and machine in production are both forms of capital; both instruments of production. marx's obscenity is the idea that some element of man's soul gives him the dignity of a special labour,marx never says anything like this.
here is my take independent of Marx: humans have evolved the capacity to reason economically in a way other animals have not (so far) and which machines do not (so far), Humans operate a human economy for the purposes of satisfying human needs. This is the reasont they are the subject of the capitalist economy and commodities are objects.
>>2076836>slave-master logic. just like how blacks used to be 3/5ths of a human, right?No. Not like that at all. The 3/5ths compromise was about the free states not wanting the slave states to have more proportional representation in the legislature by counting their slaves as part of the total population. It was the slave states that wanted their slaves to be counted as part of the population so that they could have more representatives in the government. It was a struggle over representation of states in the lesgislature. It was not a debate over the humanity of black slaves. To be sure, slaves and black people in general were thoroughly dehumanized in both slave states and free states, but that is not what the 3/5ths compromise was about. It was a compromise between free states and slave states over the number of representatives slave states should get in the legislature. Indeed, if it were debating ontologically about the humanity of black people rather than demographically over the composition of the legislature, the slave states would likely have had the opposite position, demanding that slaves be regarded as non-humans, but when it came to measuring demographics for legislative representation, and not to the ontological question of the humanity of black people, the slave owners would have preferred that black people be counted as population. Key word: Counted. Not regarded as human, but counted as population.
Meanwhile the question you and I are discussing is the question over whether machines (which are not yet sentient) produce value. You suggest the idea that machines don't produce value is an ontological sleight of hand, and now you are suggesting that I am somehow engaging in anthropocentric metaphysics even though I do not at all exclude the possibility that machines may some day, in the distant future, be meaningfully sentient, or that mankind could merge with machines, or that other animals (of which humans are a kind of animal anyway) will evolve to have advanced societies and technologies and modes of production like humans currently do.
Marx talks about value in human terms because he is describing human society and the political goal of the liberation of human beings. Of course he has political bias and a political goal but so do people who try to universalize everything and pretend to be neutral.
>>2076990what's your name?
an important part of planning is assigning quotas for names. I will make sure you aren't included in those either. your name will be a provisional UUID, forever
>>2076867>he never said anything like this <A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm>man is the subject of capitalismno, capital is the subject, which is why as marx says, capitalists as a class are slaves to its inhuman will, and we as workers are its life-blood. humans are capital, so we are merely fleshly robots (objects). the subjectivity of man is only in how his slavery is mystified in exchange. a man sells himself under capitalism, but only because he has to. socialism then means reclaiming man as the social subject by submitting production to our needs, rather than the other way round. this is why socialism is not a mode of "production", but a Geist, or self-consciousness, in determination. capitalism seeks to abolish society, socialism attempts to reveal it. this is its negation of negation. marxism is contradictory by comparison where it thinks that the mind is determined by the forces of production (ruling thought is the thought of rulers) yet somehow they can freely think outside of the system. reminds me of socrates saying "i am the wisest man who has ever lived for i know that i know nothing". knowledge is posited as it is denied, like how the marxist will make moral claims and then deny morality. pick a lane, or shut up.
>political economy is humanyes, but only because the system abstracts labour ahead of time, like how a slaver accounts his resources. man's wage is no different from the cost of a slave, except that his wage is voluntarily given. this is why to marx, only in the wage relation do we have surplus-value. in directly paid labour-power is there unpaid labour, but as i have previously said, this social relation is immaterial to the technological advancements of the capitalist age, which is its true content, as an artificial slavery; hence, it is machine labour which drives capitalist production, not humans. it is human *consumption* which drives capitalism, but not human *production*, which is why a UBI capitalism of sorts is a possibility, while marx is ignorant of this, since his theory of value is incorrect. how can capitalism be self-perpetuating without surplus-value? thus, surplus-value is a false theory of capitalist expansion. capitalism is just an advanced form of slavery where machines and humans suffer together; thats it. the bulk of unpaid labour belongs to machines and tools. UBI means paying for machine labour, proving how value can be self-perpetuating with only human consumption, and without surplus-value. the only rebuttal is to point to those who maintain the machines as the value-producing agent, but according to marx, one is paid his full value in wages, so if these people who maintain the system are paid more than those who merely consume, then we at least order things in a fair way. a skilled worker is paid more than an unskilled worker in the same way (but this is also due to supply and demand, not the social investment we apply to skilled work according to SNLT. thats why "skill" isnt just from schooling, but also from natural talent, like we see in sports or music. one can be naturally more intelligent than another, making him naturally more valuable, depending on his vocation - his labour-power thus is not just a temporal entity which is a return on investment, but is simply something in high demand based on low supply).
>>2076836(he didn't even respond to this post:
>>2076929 and admit that his understanding of the 3/5ths compromise was completely ahistorical )
yep, dishonest cretin
>>2078806>>2078807>weasel>cretinsomeone's mad, but someone lacks arguments too, but thats been the expected outcome, unfortunately.
your claim of dishonesty is a blatant projection also. i have done nothing but argue fairly, and you are the onr stooping to childish insult.
>>2078810yes, and marx's failure is in properly identifying the base of this "productive" labour, hence my obvious criticism. if a wage denotes the value of labour-power yet my labour doesnt count, then you cant claim an epistemology based on wage-labour.
>>2078812I said machines don't create value because they aren't aren't sentient (yet).
>I could concede machines being workers only under the condition that they were actually meaningfully aliveYou said:
<slave-master logic. just like how blacks used to be 3/5ths of a human, right?which I then refuted as both completely ahistorical and a terrible comparison in this post:
>>2076929But now you say I don't have arguments because you ignored the arguments I did have. That's dishonest. Weasel. Cretin. I will attack you with ad hominems because you are wasting everyone's time.
>>2078825yes, your first claim is that sentience creates value, which is retarded anthropocentrism as ive explained and BACKED UP with my marx quote on him speaking on man's "imagination" being the determinate factor of his labour, which you tactically never responded to yourself.
i make a comparison to slavery because it is the same logic, that slaves are just instruments of production, like animals, and only wage workers produce value. i am criticising marxist metaphysics more than *you* specifically, but if you insist upon the idea that man is uniquely determined animal, then you imply that a slave in bondage does not possess this "human" aspect of his labour, but only becomes fully human when he is granted rights - and you must accept this idea if you think that only workers create value.
also animals are sentient but you would deny them the ability to create value, so you contradict yourself by debasing the labour of machines. sentience has NOTHING to do with production, which is why a machine labours much more efficiently than man.
>But now you say I don't have arguments because you ignored the arguments I did have.i responded to your arguments. do you want to me respond to one specific post, and will that make you happy?
> I will attack you with ad hominems because you are wasting everyone's time.how? because i completely rip apart your religion?
i have made an iron case against your claims and you respond with a tantrum. thats all thats happened.
>>2078828these are entirely normative judgements. what economically determines surplus-value? how can i tell if i produce surplus-value or not?
>>2078840here's a quote from you:
>I said machines don't create value because they aren't aren't sentient (yet). you claim that machines dont create value because they arent sentient.
how am i incorrect in my assessment?
>>2078838your claim:
> marx's obscenity is the idea that some element of man's soul gives him the dignity of a special labourI demanded you cite where he says this:
Your citation:
<A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will.Nowhere in this quote does Marx claim " some element of man's soul gives him the dignity of a special labour"
Your entire method is to misattribute to others an argument they didn't make, refute that argument, and then claim anyone who sees through this tactic is "throwing a tantrum."
You did this also when I said:
>I could concede machines being workers only under the condition that they were actually meaningfully aliveYou somehow compared this to the dehumanization of black
people under chattel slavery (who are obviously sentient, unlike our very primitive and rudimentary machine learning algorithms), suggesting that my logic was similar to such dehumanization:
>slave-master logic.You then made a completely ahistorical reference to the 3/5ths compromise which you somehow got the impression as being a debate over exactly how human black people were, when in reality, it was about the slave states seeking more legislative representations, first by attempting to
fully count their slaves as
population (while still disregarding their humanity) before
compromising with the free states to
count only 3/5ths of their slaves as
population (while still disregarding their humantiy).
This ahistorical comparison had
nothing to do with the question of whether machines create value in Marx's framework of SNLT, you brought it up completely as a lazy attack.
>>2078847>Nowhere in this quote does Marx claim " some element of man's soul gives him the dignity of a special labour"yes because i was obviously speaking figuratively, not literally, which why i never used quotation marks. basic grammar…
and what figuratively follows is true to my meaning, that to marx, man is a unique animal who uses his "imagination" to produce, which is bullshit as you must know. also, how does marx know the cognition of insects? the intelligence of their structures shows the intelligence of their species. his comments are anthropocentric ignorance, and so is his theory of value.
>slaveryyes you are right that i use a lazy and irresponsible comparison, and i genuinely recant it. i was just trying to show that "sentience" is not the quality of producing values, since you would also discount animals as being capable of producing values, i take it. the reason i didnt respond to the original post was because i found it irrelevant to the larger topic, not because i am "dishonest". if i was dishonest, why would i engage in this argument to begin with? just to waste everybody's time" as you say? no. please treat my patience seriously.
>>2078848>sentience doesn't create value but it is a prerequisite for creating valuewhy? what is value in your mind? if value is just what is exchanged as labour-power in a wage contract then is your position that slaves do not produce value? and in this case, do you then admit that the only difference between a slave and worker is a wage? and if this is the case, then you could just pay a machine to work and he will be an un-sentient worker, which is basically the idea of UBI, no?
>An unemployed person is sentient, but they do not produce surplus valueyet without unemployment benefits, society would implode. this is because human *consumption* is primary to value-creation, not human *production*.
>>2078857>yes because i was obviously speaking figuratively, not literallyYou shouldn't speak figuratively when claiming someone else said/believed something.
>yes you are right that i use a lazy and irresponsible comparison, and i genuinely recant itThank you.
>why? what is value in your mind? In my mind, value can refer to many things, but in the context of Marx's work, and the class struggle under capitalism, value refers to the amount of socially necessary (i.e. average) labor time required to produce a commodity in a capitalist economy. Value is determined by the labor input, rather than market prices, which are influenced by both labor input and other post-production factors.
Value is a statistic of production carried out by humans. Machines don't create value, they transfer value to their output commodities, but they themselves are products labor inputs in a commodity production setting.
The slave mode of production is not what Marx is describing when he talks about value. The capitalist mode of production is.
FWIW I don't think Marx was right about literally everything, and I understand that value is a
social construct and not
literally physically real, but so are mathematics, and they're still useful.
>>2078861>shouldnt speak figurativelyit works if it is accurate
>tyyw
>Value is determined by the labor input, rather than market pricesthe issue is that marx says that the value of labour-power (its SNLT) is represented by the wage. he also says that more skilled labour receives a higher wage, implying that labour is a unit of production measured by the price of labour-power. the issue is that a CEO who receives a wage is then compared in his value against others. this i find to be *irrational* (since markets are irrational). marx however thinks markets are rational, which then implies one's wage relates to the value of his labour-power. an example i use is the millionaire athlete. does his salary denote his labour-power? and if not, then what does?
>Value is a statistic of production carried out by humans.or what i would call the cost of production, which is contrary to the LTV.
>Machines don't create value, they transfer value to their output commoditiesbut if a robot only worked if you gave it money it would suddenly produce values?
>The slave mode of production is not what Marx is describing when he talks about value. The capitalist mode of production is.he speaks on aristotle as conceiving the theory of value (as it relates to the equivalence of commodities by a common substance), and also says that it is only in capitalism that the law of value freely develops.
his understanding of the commodity developing into money also shows how he sees value as an immanence in all eras. so value to marx is not just a capitalist construct, but it is only in capitalism that humanity as a whole is inducted into the value relation. to marx, wherever there is money, there is value in exchange.
what differs in capitalism to marx is the development of the circuit of capital (M-C-M') which sustains the exploitation of surplus-labour
this all only makes sense if we consider *machines* as primary to this mode of production. exploitation has existed in all eras, but only manufacturing becomes so dominant in capitalism. "labour-saving devices" are labour-extracting devices.
>FWIW I don't think Marx was right about literally everythinggood
>value is a social construct and not literally physically real, but so are mathematics, and they're still useful.i would claim that mathematics as an abstraction is real, but value is not. the world can be measured by numbers, but not by values.
>>2078877>the issue is that marx says that the value of labour-power (its SNLT) is represented by the wage.The proletariat subsists under their wages and does not (on average) accumulate wealth above what they need to survive and reproduce. LP is paid for with a wage. Wage is the price of LP. This is only because proles are (on average) given subsistence wages. I.e. they are paid just enough to survive (and eventually, reproduce, creating another generation of workers). Since the commodity they "sell" for a wage is their LP, the wage refreshes their LP. But Marx also makes the point that labor power is, in his framework for describing capitalism, a unique commodity.
now you could point out that some workers make above subsistence, but Marx is only talking about the average worker. Some workers also make below subsistence and die. Some workers make above subsistence and accumulate enough to buy means of production, hire others, and become petit bourgeois. On average though, the working class as whole makes subsistence wages because that is what keeps them stuck in their class. It does not either kill them off (making them no longer useful to the capitalist) or lift them out of their precarious position (making them into a small capitalist).
There are also peasants and downwardly mobile petit bourgeoisie in Marx's time getting proletarianized because of urbanization and industrialization. There is also a reserve army of labor, usually relatives of proletarians, who become dependent on proletarians to survive until they are able to become employed again.
LP is unique to Marx because it is the only commodity capable of "creating" "value". Unlike other commodities, labor power has the ability to produce more value than it costs to reproduce it, generating surplus value (profit) for the capitalist. This distinctive characteristic forms the basis of exploitation in capitalist economies.
LP is unique because humans can create new value through work, unlike other commodities, which only transfer their existing value created by human labor power. This ability to generate surplus value is the foundation of capitalist profit.
LP creates more value than it costs by producing goods or services that are worth more than the wages paid for the labor. This doesn't violate thermodynamics because it's not about energy conservation; it's about the value created through social relations and the exploitation of labor, not a physical law of energy.
Machines and animals can't create value because they don't have the ability to generate surplus value in a capitalist system. Only labor power, through human effort, can produce more value than its cost, creating profit for capitalists.
It's not just semantic; it's about the unique role of human labor in value creation. Unlike machines or animals, humans can work creatively, add value beyond the cost of labor, and generate surplus value, which is key to capitalist profit.
Marx isn't attributing metaphysical powers to humans; rather, he's describing the social and economic function of labor. Humans, unlike machines and animals, can engage in labor that creates surplus value due to the social relations of production, where human work is the source of profit, not a metaphysical quality.
>>2078892>>2078892>The proletariat subsists under their wages and does not (on average) accumulate wealth above what they need to survive and reproduce. LP is paid for with a wage. Wage is the price of LP.to marx, a commodity can only be exchanged for its value. a wage is not a contingency, but is a necessity of its transaction. a wage is the *value* of LP since to marx, exchange is *determined* by SNLT and is therefore an objective variable. a skilled worker to marx objectively receives payment for his LP higher than than the unskilled. the controversy is that an unproductive worker can receive much more than a productive one, so the market is revealed to be irrational, which contradicts marx. this is also true of commodities in general. if only prices can measure value, then value can be seen as synonymous with value.
>Some workers also make below subsistence and die.to marx, the exchange of LP can only pertain to its SNLT, therefore one cannot exchange LP *below* its value. what is traded is equivalents, as marx has it - which is also why many marxists deny imperialist superexploitation for example.
>Some workers make above subsistencemarx would consider this "skilled labour", which then accrues higher SNLT or value in exchange. one's LP is based on his skill.
>Unlike other commodities, labor power has the ability to produce more value than it costs to reproduce it, generating surplus value (profit) for the capitalist.question: did profit exist before capitalism?
>LP is unique because humans can create new value through work, unlike other commodities, which only transfer their existing value created by human labor power.so slavery yields no value since their LP is not commotised? if this is the case, then why is slavery viable in the first place? and if a slave's labour *is* valuable, then why not a machine?
>value created through social relations and the exploitation of labor, not a physical law of energy.right, so value is not objective
>Machines and animals can't create value because they don't have the ability to generate surplus value in a capitalist system. if machines and animals cant create values, why invest in them?
>Unlike machines or animals, humans can work creatively, add value beyond the cost of labor, and generate surplus valuewhen i was in amazon i did not work creatively. did i fail to create value?
also, if i invest in a machine and yield a profit, is this profit an illusion since machines apparently cant add value beyond the cost of labour?
>Marx isn't attributing metaphysical powers to humansyes he is. and so are you.
as i have explained; if you pay a machine to work, it is the exact same as paying a prole in the scheme of production, except a machine cannot consume - thus, man's primary object in the value relation is to consume, not to produce.
>>2078911but value is still present as the determination of exchange. wherever there is the exchange of commodities, there is value, to marx. value is not something exclusive to capitalism. marx says that in aristotle's time there is an inequality of labour powers due to slavery, but still admits to LP existing as a means of commensuration, otherwise exchange all together would be impossible.
>>2078934> did profit exist before capitalism?In pre-capitalist societies, surplus production existed, but it was typically extracted in ways that were not based on the specific capitalist mode of production.
Under feudalism the surplus (or profit-like value) was largely extracted through rents, tithes, or tributes, often paid in kind (e.g., crops, livestock) or through the direct labor of peasants who were bound to the land.
In slave societies surplus value was extracted from the labor of slaves, but it was not through the wage-labor relationship seen in capitalism. Instead, it was through direct control and ownership of human beings.
n these systems, the concept of profit wasn't tied to the same social relations of production as in capitalism. The extraction of surplus value wasn't mediated by capitalists as owners of the means of production who employ wage labor.
Under capitalism, profit arises from the exploitation of wage labor. Workers sell their labor power (commodified labor) to capitalists, and the capitalists extract more value from the labor than they pay in wages. This difference is called surplus value, and it is the source of profit in capitalism.
Labor power is the capacity of the worker to perform labor, which is treated as a commodity under capitalism. Unlike labor itself, which is the actual work performed, labor power is the potential to work that workers sell to capitalists in exchange for wages. It is thus labor in commodity form because it is bought and sold in the market like any other commodity.
Marx argues that commodities are sold at their value, determined by the socially necessary labor time (SNLT), because in a competitive market, producers must sell at prices that reflect the average labor time required to produce a commodity. If a commodity were sold for more than its value, competitors would enter the market with similar goods priced according to their value, forcing prices to align with the average labor time. This competition ensures that commodities exchange at their value, even though individual commodities might be produced under conditions of more or less labor.
Since labor power is commodified labor, labor power is sold at its value. Its value is, yes, the subsistence wage. Meaning the average worker can only subsist. However! Labor power produces surplus value, unlike other commodities, which capitalists appropriate and reinvest in expanding production. The source of capitalist profit is not selling commodities for more than their value, or buying them for less than their value, but exploiting labor power by paying the worker on average enough to live paycheck to paycheck but asking that they produce more value in a single shift than they themselves require to survive for a single day.
A family of four can grow more crops than they are capable of eating, and have to sell the surplus product of their farm. In the same way, a proletarian selling their labor power to a capitalist is able to produce more value in a day than they are compensated. Their labor power, as a commodity, is only valued at its SNLT, which is the wage, but the wage is a subsistence wage. The secret of the SNLT of labor power is a worker only needs to survive to reproduce their labor power.
Subsistence is meeting the physical needs: Food, water, fresh air, shelter. But people need more than subsistence to lead fulfilling lives. They need socialization, self actualization. Workers live under appalling conditions because they are only paid enough to live paycheck to paycheck. Leading a fulfilling life is, on average, impossible for the proletariat because they are exploited for surplus value, i.e. profit, by only being compensated enough to refresh their commodified labor, which is their labor power.
>>2078951>In slave societies surplus value was extracted from the labor of slavesif slaves can produce surplus-value then why cant machines?
>Under capitalism, profit arises from the exploitation of wage laboror unpaid labour. in the system of unpaid labour thus, man is only a slave, like the machine. what creates profits thus is the mass of unpaid labour in the machine - this is because capitalism is the uniquely technological mode of production.
>Marx argues that commodities are sold at their value, determined by the socially necessary labor time (SNLT), because in a competitive market, producers must sell at prices that reflect the average labor time required to produce a commodity.well, exchange to marx precedes money. one can barter materials, and this exchange is of equivalents. prices too reflect equivalent values. this is why marx thinks only LP can extract surplus-value as a commodity, since all other commodities exchange at equivalent rates.
>This competition ensures that commodities exchange at their valueor we might otherwise say that natural prices are at the bottom of market prices
>Since labor power is commodified labor, labor power is sold at its value.right, so the labour-power of the millionaire athlete is thousands of times more valuable than a minimum wage worker.
>However! Labor power produces surplus value, unlike other commodities, which capitalists appropriate and reinvest in expanding production.yes, M-C-M', or money printer goes brrr.
>Their labor power, as a commodity, is only valued at its SNLT, which is the wage, but the wage is a subsistence wage.just like the CEO's salary. subsistence wage, since that is his SNLT being exchanged for, right?
>Workers live under appalling conditions because they are only paid enough to live paycheck to paycheck.if only they could be paid more than their value… but that would violate marx - which is why he thinks that the working day should just be shortened, rather than workers paid more - since to marx, to be paid more can only be by working more. once again, marx has no comprehension of "free money", which is literally how today's capitalism sustains itself.
>Leading a fulfilling life is, on average, impossible for the proletariat because they are exploited for surplus value, i.e. profit, by only being compensated enough to refresh their commodified labor, which is their labor power.i disagree. i think the biggest drain on the proletariat today (in the west) are institutions of rent, like housing. if you gave all proles a house, they would be relatively fine with working conditions. this is why as adam smith, henry george and marx all say, land is the most important commodity in consideration.
>>2078965>i disagree. i think the biggest drain on the proletariat today (in the west) are institutions of rent, like housing. if you gave all proles a house, they would be relatively fine with working conditions. this is why as adam smith, henry george and marx all say, land is the most important commodity in consideration.Are you a neo-Georgist of some sort? I think labor conditions are still incredibly relevant, especially for proletarians outside the imperial core and, increasingly, proletarians in the imperial core as the current hegemony is in decline. In America there are migrant children working illegally in the slaughterhouses. My father has a master's degree but works in a grocery store. Working conditions are rapidly deteriorating. I'm lucky because I benefited from nepotism but my entire extended family basically relies on me and half of them have fallen into the reserve army of labor because of disability, age, or just the general difficult of finding a job that isn't gig economy shit.
To your point about rent, Yanis Varoufakis of Greece also points out the increasing non-land rents coming from Software As A Service. The falling rate of profit and crisis of overproduction means digital commodities are generally unprofitable because they can just be copy pasted over and over again, so the entire pretense of making them profitable involves the cybersecurity of making them increasingly difficult to pirate so that rent can be extracted through "software as a service" or some other contrivance like having to sit through advertisements.
Instead of having a music collection you are expected to go on spotify. Instead of having a movie collection you are expected to go on Netflix. Etc.
It is for this reason that Yanis hypothesizes we no longer live in capitalism but in some kind of "neofeudalism" which, I think he overstates his case, and most of this is just confounding features of the latest capitalist crises.
>>2078955It's not really a mathematical formula, but a sequence of events. The capitalist takes
Money (M), uses it to buy
Commodities (C) of two kinds,
Labor-power (L) and
Means of
Production (MP), "mixes" these commodities in a
Production process (P), acquires new output
Commodities (C') that are worth more than the input commodities combined, and then sells them for an amount of money greater than the initial amount of
Money (M'), this constitutes a profit, derived from surplus value, which the capitalist then recirculates in the productive process, but also uses to buy more productive assets that can net a greater profit. All of this ability for the capitalist to profit is derived from his legal ownership over the means of production, and the fact that the worker only has 1 commodity, his labor-power, to sell to the capitalist, one day at a time, in exchange for subsistence wages.
This is "simple reproduction." Marx also has other formulas for "expanded reproduction" and has a macroeconomic theory about "departments" of the economy which produce means of production (required for production), means of subsistence (required for survival), and luxury goods (not necessary for survival or production)
>>2079275the issue is that a manager still receives a wage, and thus according to marxists, his labour-power has been exchanged for in equation to his value.
>>2079286>georgismgeorgism is a meme ideology. a LVT is also just a liberal reform rather than a critical policy.
>labour conditionsi dont discount that, i just think that housing is the central condition of one's investment in life besides marriage and family. and all naturally tie together.
>technofeudalismthe renting of digital products can just be ordered under the logic of intellectual property, like copyright. this is another issue for marxists who might claim that the entitlement to a rent for one's IP is due to the products of his mental labour, like ayn rand suggests in her own work for example. this is i wonder about with leftists who dont release their work for free. this is even why some austrians release free PDFs, since it is at least constant with their morality. the whole outrage over AI "plagiarising" artists has this petit-bourgeois/artisanal class consciousness to it. in this conception, art can never be free and public.
i understand the idea of creditation, but it is also tied to ownership, and a lockean ownership of self-created labour. so IP is an interesting political contradiction in any case.
>>2079293yes. and when i say free money im really just saying redistribution.
>>2079311>the issue is that a manager still receives a wage, and thus according to marxists, his labour-power has been exchanged for in equation to his value.If your point is that Marx's framework doesn't explain 100% of situations, then yes, I agree. If your point is that socialists should abandon Marxist tendencies altogether I disagree.
> the whole outrage over AI "plagiarising" artists has this petit-bourgeois/artisanal class consciousness to itI agree with this critique as well. I am opposed to intellectual private property in all its forms. And I say that as someone who used to be an aspiring artist.
>>2079525no, my point is that marx is ultimately contradictory and so should only be a footnote for a more mature socialism. the future is not marxist.
>>2079532>they do not engage in direct production of commodities that generate surplus valuebut there is no way to economically discover this except from within the wage-relation itself (like how capitalists exploit workers by being the non-working class, and doubly, the non-waged class). you can say that managers are unprofitable, yet they hardly ever get fired. the denotation of value is in being paid a wage, yet some wages apparently dont count - this reminds me of the discourse today of saying that retail workers or barristas produce no value - but if this is the case, why would the capitalist hire them? equally, if managers were just an economic vacuum, then why is the role of management increasing? my larger criticism is that you can make a claim that all wage-labour is valuable labour (since it is exchanged for), but to then say that some labour-powers are unvaluable is to contradict the previous claim. i ask then, what is the qualifying knowledge by which we see who is productive and who isnt? and dont forget that a worker using a digging machine can be more productive than 10 slaves with only shovels. LP cannot be in means, but only in ends.
>>2079536>millionaire athletes aren't wage workers, they're service workers in an entertainment industry. Their subsistence is roughly the same as a worker's subsistence.lets say that they are paid a fixed wage - is their labour-power now a more valuable quantity which requires greater subsistence? from what i understand, marx would have to conform to the law of value in this case. this is why i say that "productive labour" is an undefined variable, except in relation to one's wage, yet the wage itself is deceptive, which is why i call markets irrational. if the value of labour-power is the price of labour-power, then value is price de facto - which solves many of marx's problems. if instead of speaking of average labour *time* we instead spoke of average labour *costs* we overcome the discrepancy, and thus give political possibility to redistribution (by proletarianising machine labour, effectively). this concept is also the intuition of the masses. telling them they are underpaid is the whole truth of the matter. telling them they are slaves to the system is what they want to hear, because they know its true. a marxist by comparison only confuses workers by first confusing himself. things are actually very simple, and the spirit of revolution is in the simple people, not the stuffy classrooms.
and i will get round to theories of surplus value eventually, but as you can imagine, its a bit much to take on when theres so much more stuff to read.
>>2079947ok thanks for the response; I just want to let you know that the other response
>>2079996 was not me. I will write something more in depth when I have the chance soon.
>>2057816> money is the measure of value to marx, according to chapter 3 of capital vol. 1>>2058283>according to marx, value is the prefigurement of commensurability since it is the relation which determines exchange; which is why he says in chapter 3 of capital vol. 1>>2058310>money to marx measures value because it contains in itself a value>>2060178>money to marx is a MEASURE of value>>2073419>to marx, money is the measure of valueI'm assuming these are all the same anon. Correct me if I'm wrong. I am not the anon you are talking to.
This is only semi-related to Marx, but I noticed that Marx says things and then contradicts them later on, because he
evolves his argument dialectically. He gives a "simple" answer to a complex question, but then reveals the contradictions in that "simple" answer, and creates a new synthesis by sublating those contradictions. Rinse and repeat. Consequences of starting out as a young Hegelian. The unfortunate part is he doesn't always make it clear when he's presenting a "simple" answer that he intends to sublate later on, and when he's giving his "final" answer. He expects the reader to figure that it. And it's even more of a shame that he never finished all the intended volumes of Capital because he may have elaborated on what he meant later on in a way Engels wouldn't have been able to only using his notes.
Clausewitz, who was also Hegelian in his influences, does something similar in
On War, which Lenin recommended cadre members and Red Army soldiers to read. There's a section on Wikipedia for this work titled "Influence and Conflicting Interpretations." I want to quote a part of that section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_War#Influence_and_Conflicting_Interpretations
>Clausewitz's use of a dialectical method to construct his argument, led to frequent modern misinterpretation because he allegedly explores various often-opposed ideas before he came to conclusions.You can see this in the work itself. Clausewitz variously says:
>War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale>War is an act of violence pushed to its utmost bounds>War is always a serious means for a serious object>War is a game both objectively and subjectively>War is a continuation of politics by other means>War is chameleon-like in characterIs war serious or is it a game? Is war violence or is it politics? War is chameleon-like, so it embodies opposite characteristics simultaneoulsy, and which characteristic "jumps out" at you depends on the context and your stand point. I'm sure if you put a gun to Marx's head he would have confessed the same about the topics he was covering.
I read a research paper once "The Eight Steps in Marx’s Dialectical Method"
Here are the steps:
1. Study the internal relations of your object of study
2. Abstract those internal relations into generalized concepts
3. Keep in mind the dialectical tropes. Keep in mind the
appearance vs. the
essence of the object of study. Keep in mind the
quantitative aspects vs. the
qualitative aspects. Find its
contradictions and attempt to
negate the concept, and to
negate its negation (i.e. to
sublate it.)
For example, When Marx says in Chapter 1 of capital that the wealth of societies in which capitalism prevails
appears as an immense accumulation of commodities, he means that in a Hegelian sense. It
appears that way. But then he goes on to investigate the
hidden essence of the matter that
appearances are a mere veneer for.
4. Research and doubt everything. Marx once said his favorite motto was "Doubt everything," and he no doubt was not nearly as confident in his own (unfinished!!!) work as Marxists today are.
5. Self-clarify your terms and definitions by investigating and interrogating yourself.
6. Work on the presentation and exposition of your ideas.
7. Keep in mind the relation between theory and practice.
8. Return to step 1 and start again.
So all that being said, when you re-read capital again, keep in mind the dialectical style of writing, and when you quote Marx, never think anything he says is the "final word" of his thoughts on the matter. He often leaves subjects only to pick them up again later with a new understanding. Is it easy for modern audiences? No. In fact the latest English translation of Capital seems to forget a lot of these Hegelian terms at the expense of making the language more plain and straightforward.
All that being said…
>>2057816> money is the measure of value to marx, according to chapter 3 of capital vol. 1>>2058283>according to marx, value is the prefigurement of commensurability since it is the relation which determines exchange; which is why he says in chapter 3 of capital vol. 1>>2058310>money to marx measures value because it contains in itself a value>>2060178>money to marx is a MEASURE of value>>2073419>to marx, money is the measure of valueRe-read chapter 19 of volume 1 and forget about chapter 3 for a moment.
>>2056298>to abolish the wages system altogether by nationalizing monopolies, letting society own the means of production collectivelyhow would that work in practice? the workers still work, some of the surplus value has to be held from them to grow the business but the amount will be decided by society collectively (in practice it will be a committee).
we got rid of the capitalist profiting and exploiting the workers and now they'll have to contribute to, which is a plus, but you didn't solve the problem above.
i guess the workers will have to own the means directly rather than them being owned collectively by the state (big capitalist but not selfish and with holistic view of the system)
>>2080210np
>>2080352yes its all me
and i do accept marx's dialectical meaning. he says early in chapter 1 of capital that the value form is the phenomenal form of an essential value. same way that in chapter 3 he says that it is not money itself which makes exchange commensurable, but it is the value between money and commodities (such the proportion of gold to cotton). this is why in times where currency is debased, money becomes less valuable than other commodities. marx would consider fiat currency as valueless, yet it is still valued as a medium of exchange. decoding this mystery is crucial - my conclusion is that the value of money is in its demand in relation to supply, and so then, value generally is a market phenomenon. this is why debasement has historically been in exceeding supply, rather than limiting it. the scarcity of goods thus creates the conditions of their value. the reason why gold standards create valuable currencies thus is not because of the quality of gold, but the quantity of gold, in its limited supply.
>>2080364i just read chapter 19. some things to note:
>Labour is the substance, and the immanent measure of value, but has itself no value. [5]here he is repeating what he says in chapter 1; that use-value as the substance of value is not a value, but only creates the conditions of value in exchange. exchange-values to marx then arise from "human labour in the abstract" or SNLT, which is rendered in the commodity of labour-power in its surplus-extraction. he says in this chapter that the difference between necessary labour and surplus-labour is paid and unpaid labour - i would agree, except that i also i also consider the "labour-power" of machines as a natural variable in production.
he also says here that the difference between a worker and slave is that the worker sells himself
>All the slave’s labour appears as unpaid labour. [8] In wage labour, on the contrary, even surplus-labour, or unpaid labour, appears as paid.the bulk of his critique is in how the value of labour-power is not the value of labour, since labour has no value to marx (which is why he thinks machines produce no value). if you can pay a slave, then you can pay a machine, however, and that is my conclusive word. the difference between capitalism and socialism in a sense then is the slavery vs the paid labour of machines. socialism then is truly a movement of the "workers of the world". the logic of modernity has been that man is a machine; is the completion of this concept then that machines are also man (like how capital is alienated labour)?
>>2080617marx in critique of the gotha program supports the idea of labour-certificates as a way to compensate workers with the fruits of their labour
he also says this must be in consideration of a surplus being extracted for administration however - so income taxes basically
what hakim gets wrong on this video is that he says that nature to marx is a source of value by appealing to the quote:
>Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power.
first we must understand "wealth" to simply refer to utility, as smith uses the term (in contradistinction to money - money is not wealth, but a thing which represents wealth; you cant eat gold).
marx then says that nature is a source of *use-values*, not *value* as such. the difference is crucial. to marx, nature has no value, but still has utility. marx then says that labour itself is a product of labour-power, which is the source of value to marx. hakim *never* mentions labour-power in this video which is very concerning.
so then, to marx, labour and nature possess no value in-themselves, but only use-values.
another mistake hakim makes is that he simply brushes off the concept of skilled labour when this is directly answered by marx as an important consideration where it concerns disparity in wages. to hakim, there is no quantification, when marx's comments in chapter 1 of capital are that SNLT can be quantified according to the skill of labour, which belongs to specific sectors obviously. being "promoted" at work to a more important job shows this difference in the higher salary.
so my conclusion is that hakim is either largely unread or an extremely casually-read marxist. this video seemed more anti-STV than pro-LTV in any case.
>>2080663thats a horrible article. its unreadable
was he using those voice to text features some phones have? at one point he even interrupts the text to correct himself
>>2081367i know nothing of list except that he was a protectionist and saw the nation as an entity which invested in "national capital" by the citizenry. he argued against smith's liberal individualism to emphasise the importance of national stock, mostly including industry, which needs its particular protection to succeed, otherwise it fails. we see this with how the west has de-industrialised due to economic liberalisation and privatisation. the more that industry is de-nationalised, the more it is erased, so he was right in that regard i suppose. thatcher in britain and regan in america are notorious for this, where both allowed industry to be scrapped to orient the economy around service, which abstractly "improved" the economy, but wrecked the lives of millions. thatcher's scheme also applied to housing, where in the privatising of housing, monopolies naturally formed. list then can be seen as an advocate of nationalisation and protection, which are proven to work.
>>2081250keep in mind the Hegelian term of
appearance. Marx says often how things
appear, implying that the
appearance hides something else.
>appearance<essence
>the slave's labor appears as unpaid <(but the slave is still given subsistence, as miserable as that subsistence is, for the maintenance of his life, as short as it may be)
>the wage laborer appears to be paid for the labor-power he sold <(even though he is not paid for the portion of his labor-power which produces surplus value)Underneath the
appearance is the hidden thing. As for money being the measure of value, or socially necessary labor time being the measure of value, we can look at this also as a matter of
>appearanceversus
<essence
>The first chief function of money is to supply commodities with the material for the expression of their values, or to represent their values as magnitudes of the same denomination, qualitatively equal, and quantitatively comparable. It thus serves as a universal measure of value. And only by virtue of this function does gold, the equivalent commodity par excellence, become money.<It is not money that renders commodities commensurable. Just the contrary. It is because all commodities, as values, are realised human labour, and therefore commensurable, that their values can be measured by one and the same special commodity, and the latter be converted into the common measure of their values, i.e., into money. Money as a measure of value, is the phenomenal form that must of necessity be assumed by that measure of value which is immanent in commodities, labour-time. We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production. Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class. Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”Labour-power and money are both
special commodities. SNLT and money are both used as a measure of value's magnitude. One is the
overlying or
obvious measure of value that
appears to everyone in the form of a
price tag but the other is the
underlying or
esoteric measure of value that is
hidden but essential and appears
at the beginning, in production. SNLT is
pure and
unaffected by market fluctuations while
price is not:
From chapter 19 we have another appearance/essence dualism:
>On the surface of bourgeois society the wage of the labourer appears as the price of labour, a certain quantity of money that is paid for a certain quantity of labour. Thus people speak of the value of labour and call its expression in money its necessary or natural price. On the other hand they speak of the market-prices of labour, i.e., prices oscillating above or below its natural price. <But what is the value of a commodity? The objective form of the social labour expended in its production. And how do we measure the quantity of this value? By the quantity of the labour contained in it. How then is the value, e.g., of a 12 hour working-day to be determined? By the 12 working-hours contained in a working-day of 12 hours, which is an absurd tautology [later in the chapter…] Let us consider, on the other hand, the capitalist. He wishes to receive as much labour as possible for as little money as possible. Practically, therefore, the only thing that interests him is the difference between the price of labour-power and the value which its function creates. But, then, he tries to buy all commodities as cheaply as possible, and always accounts for his profit by simple cheating, by buying under, and selling over the value. Hence, he never comes to see that, if such a thing as the value of labour really existed, and he really paid this value, no capital would exist, his money would not be turned into capital. Moreover, the actual movement of wages presents phenomena which seem to prove that not the value of labour-power is paid, but the value of its function, of labour itself. We may reduce these phenomena to two great classes: 1.) Change of wages with the changing length of the working-day. One might as well conclude that not the value of a machine is paid, but that of its working, because it costs more to hire a machine for a week than for a day. 2.) The individual difference in the wages of different labourers who do the same kind of work. We find this individual difference, but are not deceived by it, in the system of slavery, where, frankly and openly, without any circumlocution, labour-power itself is sold. Only, in the slave system, the advantage of a labour-power above the average, and the disadvantage of a labour-power below the average, affects the slave-owner; in the wage-labour system, it affects the labourer himself, because his labour-power is, in the one case, sold by himself, in the other, by a third person. For the rest, in respect to the phenomenal form, “value and price of labour,” or “wages,” as contrasted with the essential relation manifested therein, viz., the value and price of labour-power, the same difference holds that holds in respect to all phenomena and their hidden substratum. The former appear directly and spontaneously as current modes of thought; the latter must first be discovered by science. Classical Political Economy nearly touches the true relation of things, without, however, consciously formulating it. This it cannot, so long as it sticks in its bourgeois skin. >>2078929>SOCIALISM>Scientifically Overcoming Capitalism: Introducing Average Labor Input Summation MatricesThis is a clever acronym joke. Interestingly, there is something very close to "Average Labor Input Summation Matrices" called the Leontief inverse.
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/139801/understanding-the-leontief-inverseThe Leontief inverse, named after the Soviet-american economist Wassily Leontief, is a fundamental concept in input-output analysis, a method used to analyze the interdependencies between different sectors of an economy.
The Leontief inverse is a matrix that represents the total direct and indirect inputs required to produce a given level of output in an economy.
This is how you would basically reverse engineer SNLT from an output commodity. Cockshott says so in this article:
https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2024/12/15/response-to-unlearning-economics/
> in the classical labour theory of value as set out by Ricardo, you can decompose all of these inputs into the labour that was required to produce them. And you can do that nowadays using input output tables by tracing it backwards through multiple stages using what is now called the Leontief inverse. So with input output tables, you are already taking into account all these other factors of production. You’re taking into account the electricity, the steel, the coal, the the rubber, everything that goes into production. >>2081412i keep all this in mind, but it makes no difference to the final analysis. the universal equivalent is not in the appearance of value, but its essence, to marx (which is why debased currencies may have the appearance of value yet not possess its essence - like how a copper coin denominating a gold price is a debasement of value through a false appearance - this issue is only most prevalant in metal-based currencies, while in a fiat currency system, legitimacy is maintained by "decree" or fiat by the cancelling of money-markets basically). so then, if fiat has the *appearance* of a value yet does not posses this value in essence, it can be said to be valueless - but this is only if you consider SNLT to be a standard of value, which i dont.
where it regards the appearance of value (price) in regards to its essence (SNLT) for wages, marx admits of the fact that labour-power as a commodity does not belong to him after he has sold it, so the value of the commodity of LP is met with its price accurately. this is why marx founds the concept of surplus-value in surplus-labour; yet as he says, SNLT cannot be met with its own identity by economic analysis otherwise it is tautological, the same way that saying that the value of 1 dollar is 1 dollar - this is why to marx, commodities must be mediated by money, and money compared by commodities, so that value becomes relational rather than tautological. marx's point is that you cant measure value outside of money, thus. money measures value by the commensurability of commodities in exchange.
value of LP = wages
surplus-value = profits
essence and appearance
the conclusion then is that if only money can measure value, then LP exchanges at its equivalent value in all cases, unless we infer that the value of LP is over-priced in some cases, but how do we determine this if exchange implies equivalence? is it only an equivalence of values but an unequal exchange at the level of price? but if this is the case, then something other than money is measuring value for us to know this fact, but to marx, value cannot be measured as a quantity in-itself, but only as something compared to another.
so you can only measure values with money, and money measures values because it is itself valuable. what is value to marx? SNLT. the SNLT of a commodity then is measured by the money's SNLT - yet money has no SNLT, so commodities have no value? this could all be resolved if marx allowed money to be the thing which determines commensurability, but he declines, as you quote:
>It is not money that renders commodities commensurable. Just the contrary. It is because all commodities, as values, are realised human labour, and therefore commensurable, that their values can be measured by one and the same special commodity, and the latter be converted into the common measure of their values, i.e., into money. >>2081518yes i agree. thats why the 3 high-modern ideas of fascism, communism and liberalism clash in ww2. the nature of political modernity is a contest to subsume reality into the state. it is in the mode of kant's contradiction between freedom and necessity.
>>2081534this is getting ridiculous.
what makes fiat valuable is its demand in relation to supply. thats it. gold standards are valuable because of limited money supply, not the gold itself.
>Fiat could not have emerged from hunter gatherer society, but had to be "bootstrapped" into existence on a foundation of real money usage.what is "real money"? money with SNLT? as i have previously said, tribes have traded in seashells, which derive their value, not from the labour imported into them, but by the investment one makes to extract them, with its technical limitations. all of this only achieves one end however, which is a limited money supply. this is also what makes gold valuable; its relative scarcity. the gold standard is an irrational universal equivalent as displayed by its alternative in silver, otherwise called "the people's money", based on its availability (and therefore means of independent wealth). gold means monopoly which means wars and piracy - columbus himself set sail to try and pay off debts with gold. gold could never be a "perfect" value form but is corrupted from the beginning by stains of blood. gold only has such monetary value in immoral societies, as we see with how gold standards destroyed the world economy with the great depression. never again.
i dont believe in the difference between "real" and "fake" money. money is money, which is the medium of exchange and unit of account, not a commodity which embodies value - but a product which expresses value based on its mutual exchange. value in this case however is only determined by its means; like how the more money one has, the more one is able to waste. this is because market actors are irrational, not rationally determined by magnitudes.
>>2081436>where it regards the appearance of value (price)Only natural price is value. Value's
essence, in Marxist terms, is the amount of socially necessary labor time embodied in a commodity. It is a measure of the human labor required to produce a good or service.
Price is the monetary
appearance of value. It is the amount of money for which a commodity is exchanged in the market.
Prices can fluctuate around the value due to various factors such as supply and demand, market competition, and monopolistic practices. However, over time, prices tend to gravitate towards the value, or socially necessary labor time.
>marx admits of the fact that labour-power as a commodity does not belong to him after he has sold it, so the value of the commodity of LP is met with its price accurately.But labor-power also has the unique characteristic of being the only commodity capable of producing a surplus value because the value of labor-power is the amount of socially necessary labor time required to produce the commodities necessary for the worker to live and reproduce their labor-power. This includes the cost of food, housing, clothing, and other necessities.
When a worker sells their labor-power to a capitalist, they agree to work for a certain period (say, 8 hours a day), the capitalist pays the worker a wage that is equivalent (or, on average, close to) to the value of the labor-power. However, the worker can produce more value during this period than the value of their labor-power. The difference between the value produced by the worker and the value of their labor-power is the surplus value.
Unlike other commodities, which only transfer their own value to the final product, labor-power can create new value. For example, a machine used in production only transfers the depreciation of its initial value (i.e. its wear and tear) to the final product. The value of the machine itself is not increased. When the machine is broken, it has transferred its full value. It can have some of that value restored through repair, which is a form of labor.
When a worker uses the means of production (machines, tools, raw materials), they can produce more value than the value of their own labor-power. This additional value is the surplus value, which is the source of profit for the capitalist. And the means of production they use are not creating value (like you have said in another post) but transferring value since they are artifacts of past labor.
Suppose a worker is paid a wage of $100 per day, which is the value of their labor-power (the cost of their necessities). If the worker produces goods worth $200 in a day, the value produced is $200. The surplus value is $200 - $100 = $100. The capitalist appropriates this $100 surplus value as profit. This is why labor-power is unique: it is the only commodity that can produce more value than its own value.
Even in a world where the capitalist pays the worker more than the value of their labor-power (maybe there was successful unionization and the workers got a pay increase), they can never pay the worker the full value of the labor-power PLUS whatever surplus value they create. Because then the capitalist would only break even, and not be able to compete and grow. The continuation of capitalism relies on the capitalist appropriating at least
part of the surplus value and using it to expand production. This is capital accumulation.
The production of surplus value is the basis for the exploitation of workers in capitalism. The capitalist profits from the difference between the value produced by the worker and the value of the worker’s labor-power. The surplus value is reinvested in more means of production and labor-power, leading to the expansion of capital and the growth of capitalist enterprises.
>fiat proves value is fake and marx is irrelevantMarx posits that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of socially necessary labor time required to produce it.
This theory is not dependent on the type of currency used in the economy. Whether the currency is gold-backed or fiat, the value of commodities is still rooted in the labor required to produce them. The only difference is that fiat money is no longer commodity money, but it still acts like commodity money. This is an annoying development but one that doesn't really damage Marx.
Fiat currency, like any other form of money, serves as a medium of exchange. It does not change the fundamental relationship between labor, value (SNLT), and price (the monetary expression of value which fluctuates above/below SNLT but nevertheless gravitates around it).
The production of surplus value, which is the difference between the value produced by the worker and the value of their labor-power, remains central to the capitalist system. Even with fiat currency, workers still produce more value than they are paid in wages, and this surplus value is appropriated by capitalists as profit. The exploitation of labor, where workers are paid less than the value they create, is a fundamental aspect of capitalist production. This dynamic is not altered by the nature of the currency.
Capitalism is still prone to cyclical crises as well, whether or not the currency is fiat. Fiat currency also leads to inflation and other monetary issues, but these issues do not negate the underlying contradictions of capitalism. Inflation can exacerbate existing economic problems but does not change the fundamental mechanisms of capitalist production.
Central banks and governments can use monetary policy to manage the economy, but these policies do not change the basic relationship between labor and capital. For example, quantitative easing and other monetary policies can inject liquidity into the system, but they do not alter the fact that workers produce surplus value.
The expansion of credit and financialization in the modern economy can lead to new forms of crisis, such as debt bubbles and financial instability, but these are extensions of the basic capitalist dynamics rather than a new system.
Marx's analysis was rooted in the historical context of the 19th century, but the principles he identified, such as the production of surplus value, are still relevant today. The transition from commodity-backed precious metal currencies to fiat currency does not change the fundamental nature of capitalist production.
>>2081566>only natural price is valuewhich is still a price, on the market, even as marx says. LP is the worker's own commodity which is sold to the capitalist.
value is a price, which is the wage, which is why surplus-value has its apperance in profits.
>the capitalist pays the worker a wage that is equivalent (or, on average, close to) to the value of the labor-power.marx conceives of exchange as an equivalence of value
>For example, a machine used in production only transfers the depreciation of its initial value (i.e. its wear and tear) to the final product. The value of the machine itself is not increased.if the capitalist cant profit from an investment in machines then why would he invest in them in the first place? marx's answer is that machines merely amplify labour-power to a magnitude which resembles the value of its final product, but this is only in the presupposition that machines are "dead labour" and man is "living labour" which is an arbitrary distinction. if the claim is that machines come from humans i will just say that man eats animals to survive; does this mean man has no independent properties apart from animals - and if the chain goes all the way down to the primordial ooze and mineral transference by sunlight, then we would claim that value has its origins in a single-celled organism, which severely obfuscates the point at hand, and the object of knowledge itself. so i will say succinctly then that machines labour like man, and so are simply a form of slave. thats why if you paid a machine to work, you create a worker who just cant consume.
>Even in a world where the capitalist pays the worker more than the value of their labor-powerthis is functionally impossible according to marx, which is why he suggested shorter working days rather than higher pay.
>The continuation of capitalism relies on the capitalist appropriating at least part of the surplus value and using it to expand production. This is capital accumulation.capital accumulation is M-C-M', which is primarily money-production, not value-expansion, unless you consider money to be value (SNLT) which i dont. this is why i think fiat capitalism is possible - since capitalism simply entails monetisation, or consumption of the economy. this is why UBI is also possible.
>The production of surplus value is the basis for the exploitation of workers in capitalism.no, just money-expansion.
>fiat proves value is fake and marx is irrelevanti never said this at all lol. i say that value is just price determination and marx is worth studying. i certainly think value as SNLT is bullshit, but thats a formal disagreement.
>Whether the currency is gold-backed or fiat, the value of commodities is still rooted in the labor required to produce thembut these values cannot be mediated without a universal equivalent, or a valuable commodity which measures value, to marx.
>The only difference is that fiat money is no longer commodity money, but it still acts like commodity money. yes because the true "value" of money is its demand in relation to supply. it "acts" like commodity money because its supply is regulated. thats it.
>This is an annoying development but one that doesn't really damage Marx. it discredits marx. its fatal to him.
>The exploitation of labor, where workers are paid less than the value they create, is a fundamental aspect of capitalist production. This dynamic is not altered by the nature of the currency. all economies are based on unpaid labour. what is unique to capitalism is that it is machines who operate as slaves.
>The transition from commodity-backed precious metal currencies to fiat currency does not change the fundamental nature of capitalist production.<le nothing ever happenssure…
>>2081568its SNLT is only a contingent fact of its scarcity, which relates to the necessary fact of its value.
>>2081569nonsense. you are abstracting the concept of SNLT beyond the commodity-form in any case, which is un-marxist.
>>2081941>>2081963>picrel>prices are determined by labour-costsi dont dispute this. what i dispute is the equation between labour costs and labour time. marx's theory is that labour-time determines value, not costs in-themselves. ricardo similarly substantialises labour as a factor of production beyond its price relation. but this is only true insofar as all productive processes entail unpaid labour - inferring this lost labour to exist in commodities is unempirical however. something does not posses more value because it "embodies" more human labour.
>more capital-intensive, lower profitthis is entirely relative however. big business always loses profits because it always invests a lot into the production process (its risk necessitates a loss). capital-intensity infers big business while labour-intensive infers smaller business, so as far as i see, big business stays on top. the opposite logic is to say that automation is unprofitable, which to me is an indefensible opinion, unless you measure profits by relativity to investment and not by net profits.
>Labor inputs correlate with market prices 95%. the other 5% is explainable by the same things that have always caused market prices to deviate from natural prices.so your point is that most companies dont overprice their products in order to secure a profit? the "deviation" from natural prices is how the company makes its positive returns in the first place by charging to what is viable in markets. and 95%? this cannot be true for all sectors, especially one's which employ extremely cheap labour, otherwise they might as well pay for more skilled labour since their natural rate of profit is the same.
>>2082034i'll have to read these later
>>2082060>but production does not just concern human interventionelaborate
>>2082066All the famous Marxian economists like Anwar Shaikh and Richard Wolff got PhDs in economics. I suppose to an extent it is helpful to refute the bourgeoisie in their own language. But proletarian revolution won't be built on academic credentials. Do it if it interests you. Lenin and Castro were both lawyers.
>>2081577>if the capitalist cant profit from an investment in machinesThey do profit from investment in machines, it's just that the surplus value isn't created by the machine, but by the labor that went into the machine, which is then transfered from the machine into the final product. Part of the SNLT that went into making the machine is transferred into each commodity that the machine outputs. If the SNLT of a machine can be monetarily expressed as $10,000, and the machine makes 10,000 commodities on average before it breaks, then $1 of the machine's value is transfered to each commodity, but that doesn't mean the output commodity is $1, there may be other labor steps that have to be applied to the commodity that the machine outputs. And these labor steps may be performed by other machines, or by humans. It doesn't matter. Machinery is currently designed, operated, and maintained through human labor. There may come a time when human and machine are indistinguishable but we are not there yet. Marx's framework still makes sense regardless of things like AI and fiat.
>UBIIf you really want to go this reformist route a negative income tax makes more sense. UBI would subsidize everyone, from the riches to the poorest, equally. If you subsidize everyone with a $1000/month UBI that means the poorest will just spend it on necessities like groceries and rent, enriching the bourgeoisie who sell groceries, and the rentiers who rent out apartments, while the wealthy who own the means of production will just reinvest it in expanding production. UBI has the potential to increase, not decrease, income inequality, unless you make it so that the wealthiest don't receive it, and the poorest receive more of it.
>>2082073>elaboratehumans direct, but do not determine the ends of production. machine error is as common as human error. nature also intervenes by natural disasters or disease.
>>2082079>They do profit from investment in machines, it's just that the surplus value isn't created by the machine, but by the labor that went into the machine, which is then transfered from the machine into the final product.isnt this an unfalsifiable assertion, since you cant conceive of a case where a machine *could* create values by its very anatomy? either you or the other guy said that a machine could create values if they had sentience, but that obfuscates the question where it concerns *production*. if man is exploited in the very act of production, then surely a machine is also exploited, but just unknowingly. this is the criterion i also apply to slaves and animals. these facets are means of production, but are still exploited since their labour is unpaid. now, a marxist will claim that exploitation only occurs in capitalism in the wage relation, where one's surplus labour is extracted. if the qualitative difference between a slave and a worker then is the wage, could machines *become* exploited (and therefore value-producing units) if they are paid a wage, literally or figuratively?
>Marx's framework still makes sense regardless of things like AI and fiat. so much for historical analysis.
>If you really want to go this reformist route a negative income tax makes more sense.i dont disagree, but my question of subsidising capitalist production concerns its very social possibility. if you can get "free money" then value is being transferred/distributed, not "created". what then creates this value? my answer is machines. machines produce values when we subsidise their labour.
>>2082511yes very good point lol. i think self-checkout is more apt today however. its only good ethics to thank machines when they give you access to commodities then. same way we should thank our phones; like how christians give thanks before dinner. maybe our future robot overlords will remember our kindness..
>>2073550>in truth, it is only scarcity which grants the "inherent value" of a medium of exchange.Mediums of exchange also need to be easily stored, portable, not prone to spoiling, preferably lightweight, divisible into even units, etc. in addition to scarce. It's not just the exchange value but certain particular use values which made certain goods more likely to become widely accepted as a form of money. Precious metals in addition to the previous qualities also have the advantage of being able to be melted down and turned into many different objects. This is a very useful quality because if it is suddenly no longer useful as money it still retains its use value of being able to transform into something besides a coin.
As for scarcity, scarcity is closely associated with socially necessary labor time. With a precious metal like Gold, its relative scarcity in the Earth's crust means it requires more labor time on average to find, mine, purify, melt and mold into standardized weighted coinage. Add anti-counterfeiting measures, etc. and you can see why even when a state has a monopoly on the creation of money, the labor time associated with its creation and maintenance is still very high. The same is even true of fiat bank notes. Even once the state stops backing its bank notes with precious metals, the bank notes still need to be created, and the bank notes still have an exchange rate with the precious metals which is "decided" by the market instead of "fixed" arbitrarily by the government, which is why it's so ironic that fiat is somehow described as a currency which is backed by "trust in government" when really it represents the government giving up the idea of fixed exchange rates with precious metals and instead just messing with the money supply through quantitative easing . The labor associated with fiat isn't just bureaucratic. The bank notes are made of some kind of material. In the case of the US dollar it's a ratio of cotton and linen (flax). So you have, in a sense, Marx's endless yards of linen from his Volume 1 examples still worming their way into the physical creation of fiat bank notes. That cotton and flax has to be harvested and cleaned before it can be woven into a dollar. Then you have the portraiture, the serial numbers the watermarks, etc etc.
>>2083464yes i agree with the point on use-value (but use-values are not values)
>labour and materials needed to produce fiat constitute its valuenot at all. this is more conjecture. the value of fiat is determined by its demand in relation to supply, which is also what made gold valuable as money. gold's SNLT is only a factor of its scarcity. its scarcity is what is primary.
>>2083408>humans direct, but do not determine the ends of production. Yeah.
>machine error is as common as human error. That's a bold claim. Surely there's some difference, statistically. Also depends on what constitutes "error" definitionally.
nature also intervenes by natural disasters or disease.
Yeah.
>you cant conceive of a case where a machine *could* create valuesbut…
> a machine could create values if they had sentience… this is a case.
>that obfuscates the question where it concerns *production*.Well we aren't just talking about production, but about
human exploitation and
human political liberation from the
capitalist mode of production. You may want to create a completely depoliticized language to describe production while ignoring the consequences of
human class society, but in my opinion that just reinforces the reigning bourgeois superstructure.
>if man is exploited in the very act of production, then surely a machine is also exploited, but just unknowingly.If a person is exploited "unknowingly" they are still exploited. A machine might be able to be "exploited" economically but that's not the same thing as exploiting a living being. It's not awareness of the exploitation that matters, but awareness of one's own existence.
>this is the criterion i also apply to slaves and animals.Animals and slaves are exploited, but they aren't the core focus of Marx's critique of Capital. Complaining that Marxists focus on a particular type of exploitation to the exclusion of others and use a politicized language that is local to their concerns is like walking into a car mechanics' shop and asking "how come you won't fix my 2nd century wooden roman siege engine? I thought you guys fixed
engines." It's very Wittgensteinian.
>these facets are means of production, but are still exploited since their labour is unpaid.But they aren't exploited in the way that Marxists are using the word. It's a pure semantic issue you're taking. You're just trying to say their system is inconsistent because they have a different political project than you and choose to focus on a different area of study. It's as if you're going to the glassblower and asking him to make a plastic bottle, then when he objects because he is a glassblower you say "But a plastic bottle is just as much a bottle as a glass bottle."
>now, a marxist will claim that exploitation only occurs in capitalism in the wage relation, where one's surplus labour is extractedVolume 1: Chapter 10: Section 2:
<Capital has not invented surplus-labour. Wherever a part of society possesses the monopoly of the means of production, the labourer, free or not free, must add to the working-time necessary for his own maintenance an extra working-time in order to produce the means of subsistence for the owners of the means of production, whether this proprietor be the Athenian caloς cagaqoς [well-to-do man], Etruscan theocrat, civis Romanus [Roman citizen], Norman baron, American slave-owner, Wallachian Boyard, modern landlord or capitalist.>if the qualitative difference between a slave and a worker then is the wage, could machines *become* exploited (and therefore value-producing units) if they are paid a wage, literally or figuratively?If you really want to expand the definition of exploitation to the point of utterly depoliticizing it and making everything the bourgeoisie do to the proletariat no different than the proletariat eating broccoli or starting their car: Yes. Machines are "exploited" in the same way as the plants we eat are "exploited." I am "exploiting" my car when I drive to work. I am "exploiting" the gas pump when I fill my car up with fuel. I am "exploiting" my fridge when I refrigerate my food. Who's class interests does this utterly depoliticized definition of "exploitation" serve in a still-existing bourgeois society? If you really want a neutral qualifier better than sentience, I would say
sapience, which includes higher order cognitive functioning. It is a good qualifier even if it's a bit anthropocentric. It does not exclude the possibility of other animals evolving sapience in the future, nor of the possibility of technological sapience in machines. But until we are there, humans are the only sapient creatures that are exploited economically, and indeed the only sapient creatures that exploit other sapient creatures economically.
>so much for historical analysis.We still live under capitalism. What is your political tendency and do you think it has better momentum than Marxism?
>what then creates this value? my answer is machines. machines produce values when we subsidise their labour.Does a hammer produce value without a person to hold and swing it? Apply this same question to more advanced machines. They require fuel, power grids, resources, programming, software updates, repairs. They transfer the value of the labor that goes into their creation and maintenance onto the commodities that they
assist in the creation of. They do not create value without human input. At least not yet. And that is rooted in the historical present, not the potential historical future.
>i think self-checkout is more apt today however. its only good ethics to thank machines when they give you access to commodities thenthe self checkout machine does not give a prole access to commodities any more than a boss gives a worker a job. The self checkout machine
gatekeeps access to commodities based on whether you have money to pay for them. A boss
gatekeeps access to a job based on whether you're willing to lick boot. In a more literal sense though, you already have the commodities in your cart when you walk up to the self checkout machine. The self checkout machine is just there to make sure you leave the building in a legal way and not in an illegal way. In bourgeois society, for who's class interests are the laws written?
>>2083537>Well we aren't just talking about production, but about human exploitation and human political liberation from the capitalist mode of production. yes and my point is that postcapitalism in effect is humans exploiting machines. socialism is about the human subject dominating industry, rather than the other way round. the human struggle is only a political struggle which, like civilisation itself, depends upon its primary speciesism to sustain itself.
>You may want to create a completely depoliticized language to describe productioni want to use objective language
>that just reinforces the reigning bourgeois superstructure. so be it.
>A machine might be able to be "exploited" economically but that's not the same thing as exploiting a living being. It's not awareness of the exploitation that matters, but awareness of one's own existence.arbitrary distinctions.
>Complaining that Marxists focus on a particular type of exploitation to the exclusion of others[…]it matters when you claim that only human exploitation creates value. my problem isnt that an analysis can be specific, but it matters when you make one specific subject of exploitation the only source of value
>If you really want a neutral qualifier better than sentience, I would say sapience, which includes higher order cognitive functioning.once more you preserve the notion of a metaphysical labour in the creation of value
>We still live under capitalismnot marx's capitalism
>What is your political tendency and do you think it has better momentum than Marxism?im simply on the side of the truth.
>Does a hammer produce value without a person to hold and swing it?it is in potential. this is the hammer's own labour-power which is employed as means of production.
>>2083539>supply and demand cannot determine the value of anythingwhat determines the value of USD or GBP? that they are scarce in relation to markets. this means low supply in relation to high demand. the content of the material has nothing at all to do with it.
>>2083573> postcapitalism in effect is humans exploiting machinesWhy are you talking about postcapitalism and anticipating the exploitation and enslavement of androids or some shit when we still live in a firmly capitalist society that has yet to be overthrown? Are you interested in proletarian revolution or speculative science fiction?
>socialism is about the human subject dominating industry, rather than the other way round. the human struggle is only a political struggle which, like civilisation itself, depends upon its primary speciesism to sustain itself.Racism still exists inside the human species. Good luck fighting "speciesism" when conditions are so backwards and consciousness is so underdeveloped. Your brain anticipating social struggles far in advance of the prerequisite level of social consciousness developing to wage those struggles. It's impressive in one regard, but in another way it's like you're jumping out of the way of a train that's still two miles up the road.
>i want to use objective languageIt reeks of concealing one's aims, depoliticizing oneself, and a false pretense of somehow existing outside of and above class society. It comes off like pic related.
>so be it.Are you a wage worker by any chance?
>arbitrary distinctions.pic related lol. it makes a world of difference and it's only arbitrary if you pretend like you exist completely outside of the society you're studying.
>it matters when you claim that only human exploitation creates value.it's not that "only human exploitation creates value" it's that "only human exploitation creates value
in the sense that Marx used the word for his specific goals." Both mail and pizza get "delivered" but the pizza man doesn't "deliver" pizza to the mail box in the same sense that the mail man does. And why should he? The same word can have multiple definitions and mean different things in different contexts. Thinking that there should be only one "objective" definition of value, exploitation, etc. and Marx is irrelevant for not using that "objective" definition is frankly bizarre imo.
>once more you preserve the notion of a metaphysical labour in the creation of valueHow is sapience metaphysical? From a scientific and empirical perspective, sapience is often seen as a product of biological and neurological processes. It can be studied through cognitive science, neuroscience, and psychology. In this view, sapience is a natural phenomenon that arises from the physical structure and function of the brain. So far we can see that, at least on this planet, only homo sapiens are capable of reading, writing, higher mathematics, creating advanced industrial societies, etc. Is it really all that surprising to you that we would center our theories about class society and economics around our own activities until the actual situation we live in develops in such a way as to make species other than ourselves relevant?
>not marx's capitalismOK then go forth and be
The Marx Of Our Age. If you really want socialism to stop being Marxist, make a better alternative theory for society to root its practice in. Unless you think there is one that already exists?
>im simply on the side of the truth.a common sentiment. do many people imagine otherwise?
>it is in potential. this is the hammer's own labour-power which is employed as means of production.And the "potential" that has yet to be met is the sapience or at the very least sentience with which it can learn, maintain, and improve itself without human intervention. And no, current machine learning isn't quite there yet. There's a LOT of kinks to work out and there's a LOT of human labor that still goes into training and maintaining machine learning algorithims.
>what determines the value of USD or GBP? that they are scarce in relation to markets. this means low supply in relation to high demand. the content of the material has nothing at all to do with it.you ignored the second half of that sentence. it didn't just say "supply and demand cannot determine the value of anything" it said "supply and demand cannot determine the value of anything,
it can only determine to what extent market price deviates from equilibrium price."
Now you may assert that fiat has no equilibrium price. Well then how can supply and demand of fiat ever be in equilibrium? How can fiat be "scarce" if there is no equilibrium for it to be "scarce" relative to? And supply and demand cannot themselves explain equilibrium price by fitting four unknowns to two knowns. The equilibrium price of anything is independent of its supply and demand. Supply and demand only describe variation away from the equilibrium in the same way that a dog on a leash can only describe a certain distance away from the owner. What determines the equilibrium price?
>>2083750>Why are you talking about postcapitalism why do people talk about socialism?
>Racism still exists inside the human species. Good luck fighting "speciesism" when conditions are so backwards and consciousness is so underdevelopedmy point isnt that we should fight speciesism, but we should recognise it as the thing which constitutes civilisation. not all humans are racist, but all are speciesist. my point on socialism is that speciesism is sublated to the level of machine. man's final destiny is to be the master of matter, which will also be his downfall.
>Are you a wage worker by any chance?no, i am unemployed. i have worked before though. but socialism in any case will not be "proletarian"; this signifier is a pure fetish. a socialist is someone who rejects the category of proletariat, otherwise he becomes enslaved to it.
>it makes a world of differencenot to where it pertains to economic exploitation
again, you are confusing politics and economics.
>it's not that "only human exploitation creates value" it's that "only human exploitation creates value in the sense that Marx used the word for his specific goals."absolutely not. the marxist claim is that human labour-power creates the conditions of value, period. this is why marx expressly denies machinic labour-power as a concept. one's politics can serve different ends from his economic conclusions. like i say, machines and animals are exploited, but they have to be for human survival. life is suffering, and so on.
>Marx is irrelevant for not using that "objective" definition is frankly bizarre imo. here is that strange accusation again. i say marx is incorrect, not irrelevant.
>sapience is a natural termyet you imagine that value is only produced by man's imagination, like marx does.
>If you really want socialism to stop being Marxist, make a better alternative theory for society to root its practice in.i am not a totalitarian so dont fantasise about controlling society lol. if you believe that history is ultimately on the side of progress, then we just allow solutions to manifest. i am one man, what can i do?
>technology has no labour-power of its ownright, its only man's magical mind.
>fiatfiat has no price; it is the thing which assigns prices. it is the thing which makes exchange commensurable, but which of itself has no reference point. i use the term "value" generally, in the terms of a product in demand, but fiat is not a commodity in-itself. the reason it is in demand is because it is forcefully assigned by governments, not because a dollar exchanges for an equivalent value - what then determines exchange-values (prices)? markets.
>>2083758i must have found it irrelevant, since it doesnt get to the root question of, "what if i paid a robot to work?" yes, there is surplus-production, but what can transform this into surplus-value? apparently if you pay someone a wage. to me, socialism then must entail a compensation for machine labour, and that is the qualitative leap; like how paying a slave a wage makes him a worker who produces value.
>why do people talk about socialism?
Point taken but I'd still make a distinction between talking about the overthrow of capitalism as a political project in the present and speculatively anticipating conundrums which may or may not arise in a post capitalist society.
>my point isnt that we should fight speciesism, but we should recognise it as the thing which constitutes civilisation.
And here I thought it was agriculture and the ability for society to accumulate and store a surplus beyond its immediate needs, as well as other indicators like writing and commerce.
> not all humans are racist, but all are speciesist. my point on socialism is that speciesism is sublated to the level of machine. man's final destiny is to be the master of matter, which will also be his downfall.
You're getting almost theological here and predicting things that may or may not happen long after every human currently alive is dead. You may very well be correct but doesn't it seem a bit speculative?
>no, i am unemployed. i have worked before though.
Best of luck. It's hard to survive in this society without a source of income to meet your subsistence needs. I hope your needs are being met.
>socialism in any case will not be "proletarian"; this signifier is a pure fetish
Why? It's the majority of people, and it is specifically the class of people who do not benefit from the way society is currently arranged, neither in the short term nor in the long term. The bourgeoisie benefit (at least in the short term) from the way society is presently structured, so revolution won't come from them.
>a socialist is someone who rejects the category of proletariat, otherwise he becomes enslaved to it.
You are the only person I have ever heard say this. Are you going to change the mode of production by yourself?
>not to where it pertains to economic exploitation
>again, you are confusing politics and economics.
The segregation of politics from economics is nothing less than the political goal of the ruling class. We are allowed to have endless culture war over the superstructure but if we tamper with the economic base, we are eating the forbidden fruit. Depoliticized economics is economics that lies about or hides its political dimensions.
>absolutely not. the marxist claim is that human labour-power creates the conditions of value, period. this is why marx expressly denies machinic labour-power as a concept. one's politics can serve different ends from his economic conclusions. like i say, machines and animals are exploited, but they have to be for human survival. life is suffering, and so on.
Am I exploiting a vegetable when I eat it? What about a fungus? Or a colony of bacteria (as in a fermented food)? Is anything not exploitation to you? When you redefine a word to encompass nearly everything it ceases to have any specific explanatory use.
>i am not a totalitarian so dont fantasise about controlling society lol.
when the proletariat tries put an end to class society it's "totalitarianism" and "fantasizing about controlling society" but when the existing ruling class upholds their power by drone striking children and bulldozing homeless encampments it's just business as usual because, to quote you, "life is suffering, and so on". This is how the "objectivity" of a mindset that separates politics and economics operates. It unconsciously upholds the existing power structure while claiming to be above all established dichotomies. You are above the "proletarian fetish" because "life is suffering, and so on."
> if you believe that history is ultimately on the side of progress, then we just allow solutions to manifest. i am one man, what can i do?
>believe
>progress
"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it."
>right, its only man's magical mind.
Not once have I stated man's mind is "magical" nor have I ruled out the possibility that other life forms may possess or eventually evolve to possess the same faculties. Nor Have I even ruled out the possibility of sapient technology emerging. In fact you got a lot closer to treating mankind magically when you said "man's final destiny is to be the master of matter, which will also be his downfall."
>fiat has no price; it is the thing which assigns prices.
If so it "assigns prices" in a way that highly correlates with labor inputs, rather than arbitrarily.
>it is the thing which makes exchange commensurable
Commodities are commensurable with each other through barter (as inefficient as it is), or in-kind payments. If 3 men get on a boat and haul up 300 fish in a net, they could each get paid a wage, but they could also each get 100 fish. The average amount of labor required to acquire something has a lot more influence on the price of that something than the central bankers do. They can only affect the interest rates, and the rate of inflation. They cannot change the amount of work it requires to acquire something, they can only change the ratio at which their currency will exchange with the products of labor-power. This is why when a lot of fiat gets printed, prices go up in general because the money becomes worth less relative to labour-power and what labor-power produces.
>but which of itself has no reference point.
Before and after the Nixon shock, the prices of staple commodities remained relatively stable. These things required roughly the same amount of socially necessary labor time to produce both before and after USD went off the gold standard. Why didn't fiat make that much of a difference in those staple prices? Because the reference point is socially necessary labor time. You can deny that all you want. If anything, one could say that fiat, rather than being "grounded" in the standard of a single precious metal, is "grounded" simultaneously in the socially necessary labor times of all the commodities in the economy in which the fiat operates.
>i use the term "value" generally, in the terms of a product in demand, but fiat is not a commodity in-itself.
Though it is produced through the social labor of standardizing, minting, quantitative easing, anti-counterfeit measures, and so forth.
>the reason it is in demand is because it is forcefully assigned by governments
it is actually forcefully demanded by governments. By giving people a tax liability that is only payable in fiat, people have to go out into the economy and… get jobs, do labor, produce commodities… so they can pay that tax liability, so they can pay their utility bills, so they can pay their rent. It still circles back around to labor. The only reason fiat has any value is because it forces people to do useful labor in a social setting in a timely fashion to produce useful commodities that make society function.
>not because a dollar exchanges for an equivalent value - what then determines exchange-values (prices)?
labor inputs
>i must have found it irrelevant
You asserted that "a marxist will claim that exploitation only occurs in capitalism in the wage relation" but in Capital Volume 1 Chapter 10 Section 2 Marx says Capital has not invented surplus labor and that the laborer, whether a free or a slave, must produce surplus value. So Marx does not even remotely rule out exploitation existing in other modes of production, nor does he rule out slaves being exploited.
> to me, socialism then must entail a compensation for machine labour
so I need to insert a quarter into my hammer before I'm allowed to hit nails with it? what does this even mean? This just sounds like rent on commodities, which we already deal with these days in the form of "software as a service" because the SNLT to reproduce of a piece of software is basically zero after it's written so it has to be made artificially scarce through cybersecurity and rent schemes.
this post:
>>2083918 was meant for this post:
>>2083791>>2084844Never mind, he actually says why:
https://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/357k/357ksgVIII.html
>We begin with Part VIII of Capital instead of Part I for two reasons. In the first place, Part VIII is a lot easier to read, being less abstract and richer with historical detail. The chapters of Part I, which deal with "value" and money, tend to be very abstract and terse. In the second place, the study of Part VIII, which shows how the capitalist system originated, i.e., how capital originally created the working class and imposed its system on it, provides a very useful point of reference for the careful dissection of value in Part I.
>Once we have seen how people were driven off the land and otherwise dispoiled of their means of production and reproduction, how their existing social and cultural relations were destroyed, how they were thus forced to sell their life-time as the commodity labor-power, and found their lives subordinated to work, then it is much easier to understand why Marx elaborated a "labor" theory of value (because the substance of the social relations of capitalism is imposed work) and why he pays so much attention to the "commodity form" (the form of the imposition of work). At each step of his abstract discussion of the substance, measure and form of value, we will find it easier to explore the social and class meaning of their various aspects thanks to our reading of Part VIII. If the imposition of work on most members of society through the commodity form, i.e., through the process of forcing them into the labor market, is the defining case of exchange in society, then we can see how every aspect of exchange, including the role of money, is an aspect of that central class relationship. To remember this after stating it as an abstraction is difficult. To remember it after having explored the historical period of the inception of the commodity form is much easier. reposting this from another thread because it's also relevant here
>>2078775
There is use-value, and exchange value. If any value could be said to be subjective, it's not exchange value, but use value. A use value is something that is useful to a human for some reason or another. Economics is anthropocentric because our theories about economics surround satisfying human needs. So when we discuss commodities, they have to satisfy a human need of some sort. It doesn't matter how much labor went into producing something if it's useless to the vast majority of humans. If I spend all day making mud pies that is not useful labor because mud pies do not have use value. Now maybe there's one weirdo out there who has a use for mud pies but he is a statistical outlier. Economics cares about the social aggregate. So for a commodity to be a commodity it needs both use value and exchange value, and to be mass manufactured for the purposes of making a profit in a capitalist market. If you forget that a commodity has these prerequisites you will trouble yourself.
That being said, there is still an extent to which even use value is not "subjective" since the "human needs" it satisfies usually belongs on a hierarchy of needs. At the bottom are the most fundamental needs: Subsistence. Survival. Food. Water. Shelter. These are commodified in a capitalist economy. Clean air is not but could be eventually. Higher up you have means of production, which ensure society continues to be as productive or more productive than it was in the past. Without the constant creation of means of production the level of productivity in society will decrease, and we will not be able to make as much food and shelter for ourselves. People will die. Higher up still are consumer goods. Like sports equipment, video games, or self help books. These satisfy needs like fun, escapism, self-actualization. Finally there are addictive and harmful commodities like alcohol and cigarettes, "vice" commodities which satisfy people's addictions. But you can see that there is a hierarchy of needs, similar to the one from Psychology created by Mazlow, that determines the priorities of the general economy. So in that way even use-value is not subjective.
Exchange value has surface appearance as money-price, but its essence is the socially necessary labor time required to produce the commodity. Socially necessary labor time is the average amount of labor time it takes to produce a commodity. It assumes workers of average skill, average productivity, average dexterity, etc. it is a socially aggregated statistic so it does not focus on variations in skill or methods at the level of the individual worker or firm, which no doubt exist. Point is, the exchange value of a commodity is determined by its labor inputs. Once the commodity is made however, the price it will fetch in a market becomes also dependent on auxiliary factors like supply, demand, monopoly, etc. These can cause the money price to deviate from the underlying exchange value determined by labor inputs. But money price (appearance) is just a dog on a leash. The owner is still exchange value (essence). The dog will only deviate from the owner by some given radius determined by the length of that leash. He is still firmly anchored to the owner.
I've been thinking. When people first begin to study a subject, there are so many intertwined prerequisites. You have to learn A in order to understand B, but you also have to learn B in order to understand A. It's not clear which should be taught first. Teachers use a technique called scaffolding It often is necessary to give students explanations which are oversimplified, but this can lead to common misconceptions, where the necessary oversimplifications of introductory material become popularized explanations consumed as common knowledge. There is also the matter of accuracy. Introductory oversimplifications often serve as shorthand for more nuanced and accurate material. One way around this is metacognition, where you constantly remind people that their understanding is evolving and they shouldn't run away with their present level of understanding and think of it as "final' or "compete." But people will inevitably do this anyway, because there's only so much time in life and people want to discuss ideas they've learned with each other, even if they are still amateurs.
I think this has huge political consequences, because in much the same way as one's understanding of a field of study constantly evolves towards the highest level of understanding society has currently achieved, so does one's understanding of politics. Workers, especially when not raised by particularly class conscious people, first acquire vulgarized understanding of alienation, exploitation, wage labor, capital, value, price, profit etc. before having their understanding refined through practice. But many people "drop out" before they have their understanding refined, and they circulate a vulgar/mistaken/incomplete understanding among the masses,
What are your thoughts on this?
>>2058031> marx is a thinker of the gold standard, not fiat, so whats your response? have we abolished money, or have we just abolished marx?The move from commodity money to fiat money under imperialism was a move by the capitalists to try to stabilize late-stage capitalism. According to Marxism, this is a losing game in the long run, but it's not to MMT, which ultimately maintains capitalist social relations.
Marx probably would call MMT a kind of bourgeois socialism.
MMT stresses government spending to create full employment, which Marx knows is contradicted by the needs of the capitalist class, while managing inflation, which Marx probably would say cannot be done by the capitalist state indefinitely due to the nature of capital over-accumulation and the declining rate of profit.
Part 1
The "fiat vs. commodity money" debate is a false dichotomy because it presents these two forms of money as completely separate and mutually exclusive systems, when in reality, they are often intertwined, and their characteristics can coexist or evolve in ways that blur the lines between them. To see them as opposites is to ignore the nuanced ways in which both types of money serve similar functions in an economy, and how they can complement each other under certain circumstances.
Fiat money is currency that (allegedly) has """"no intrinsic value"""" and is """"not backed by a physical commodity,"""" like gold or silver. Later, I will get into why it's a rote dogma repeated by the high priests of contemporary bourgeois economics. For now, "pretend" that this is "true." Instead, of "intrinsic" value that is "backed" by precious metal, its value is (allegedly) "derived" from the "trust" and "confidence" that people have in the issuing government or authority. If you can't tell already, I also think this is bullshit, and will get into it later. Also pretend this is true. The most common example is modern paper currency or digital money, which is accepted as a medium of exchange because (allegedly) society "agrees" it "holds value" (specifically exchange value, which if you think about it is just the specific use value of being exchangeable due to having an exchange rate, but that's a different issue for a different day). Commodity money, on the other hand, has """intrinsic value"""" (allegedly), often because it is based on a physical commodity like gold, silver, or even precious metals. Its value """comes from""" or is """"based on"""" the material it’s made from and its historical role as a store of wealth and a medium of exchange.
However, framing the debate strictly as a "fiat vs. commodity money" dichotomy overlooks the historical evolution and the mixed nature of many modern monetary systems. In the past, many currencies were backed by commodities like gold, which allegedly gave them an inherent value. Yet, over time, the world moved toward fiat currencies, especially after the gold standard was abandoned in the 20th century. But even then, we see that the distinction is not absolute and fixed, but relative and fluid. For example, many fiat currencies still maintain some connection to commodity money in the form of reserves or commodities like oil, which influence the global financial system.
At the heart of this false dichotomy is the misconception that fiat money is inherently unstable or unreliable compared to commodity money. While it is claimed that fiat money depends on """trust""" in governments or central banks to manage its value, fiat's exchange rate with precious metals is actually managed not through some abstract alleged "trust" that people have, but through federal control of interest rates, as opposed to commodity money, which is managed through the exchange rate of the currency with the precious metal commodities. What was done directly with commodity money: government control of exchange rates, is instead done indirectly with fiat money, through government control of interest rates, while the market is allowed to "handle" the exchange rates through the "invisible hand." But this is simply obfuscation, because by controlling interest rates, the government is still effectively controlling exchange rates. Commodity money effectively never went away, government simply changed the mechanism through which they controlled exchange rates, and then declared, as a matter of bourgeois dogma, that it no longer controlled these things, and that currency was instead "backed" by "trust" or even "faith." This is an idealistic veneer meant to mask the essence of value. Conscious or not.
With fiat money, the exchange rate with precious metals isn't directly managed through a fixed peg, as was done with commodity money. Instead, it is influenced indirectly by government control over interest rates, monetary policy, and other economic tools. While commodity money required direct government intervention to adjust exchange rates with precious metals, fiat money relies on managing the broader economy through mechanisms like interest rate adjustments and inflation control. This allows fiat money to float freely in the market, but the government still exerts influence over its value through policy, much like how commodity money was controlled through direct adjustments. What was directly government controlled under commodity money through exchange rates is indirectly controlled under fiat money through interest rates.
Part 2
Commodity money, while historically important, came with challenges for the ruling class. For example, if a country’s economy grows faster than the supply of gold or silver, the money supply can become insufficient to support the economy's needs. This can lead to deflation or economic stagnation. Deflation is bad for the ruling class. It represents a decrease in prices of hoards of commodities held back for sale, and it represents an increase in the purchasing power of proletarian wages. Furthermore, commodity money can create problems in times of scarcity or instability in the supply of the commodity. Gold, for example, is finite, and its price can fluctuate due to factors unrelated to the overall economy, such as labor difficulties (in mining) or geopolitical events (like theft or bombing of physical reserves through warfare). Thus, the rigid nature of commodity money can be an obstacle to maintaining an economic system that is "stable" and "responsive" to the needs of the ruling class.
The reality is that many modern economies are built on systems that blend the features of both fiat and commodity money. For example, while the US dollar is fiat money, its value still has exchange rates with tangible assets, and is fluctuating relative to tangible assets. Similarly, many central banks hold substantial reserves of gold, which can help stabilize their fiat currencies in times of economic uncertainty. This suggests that rather than being separate, commodity and fiat money are two sides of the same coin: Measures of value, expressions of socially necessary labor time in the price form. Each offers slightly different characteristics that complement one another. Commodity money constitutes the historical foundation of fiat money.
The "fiat vs. commodity money" dichotomy is further complicated when we consider alternative forms of money, like cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are often portrayed as a new form of commodity money, backed by digital "scarcity" when really they are backed by the "labor" time of completing arbitrarily difficult algorithms, which in turn is "backed" by the socially necessary labor time needed to create the "mining" hardware and provide the electricity used by the "mining" hardware. Cryptocurrency is "mined" by solving complex mathematical problems using computer hardware. These problems "validate" transactions and add them to the blockchain. "Miners" "compete" to solve the problem first, and the "winner" is "rewarded" with new cryptocurrency tokens, creating an "incentive" to "maintain" the network. This process has very little oversight but (allegedly) "secures" the system and ensures "decentralized" (a libertarian fetish) "verification" (a governmental process if there ever was one).
Yet, these currencies also "rely" on the "trust" of their users and a "decentralized" network, making them more similar to fiat money in some respects than traditional commodity-backed systems. Cryptocurrencies embody the blending of both concepts: digital assets with a fixed supply (similar to commodity money) that still require confidence in a system to maintain their value (similar to fiat money).
The dichotomy between fiat and commodity money is false because it oversimplifies the relationship between different forms of money and ignores the ways in which they can evolve, interact, and complement each other. It also denies the foundational requirement of abstract labor.
But here's the thing: both fiat money and commodity money have fluctuating rather than fixed exchange rates with precious metals such as gold. Even when commodity money is said to be "backed" by a precious metal, the exchange rate fluctuates over time. Ironically, when commodity money fluctuates in its exchange rate with precious metals, this is due to direct, manual adjustment of the exchange rate by a government which has to periodically "catch up" with the market data about that exchange rate. Fiat on the other hand, removes direct government control entirely over the exchange rate with precious metals, yet economists frequently repeat the rote dogma that fiat money is quote "backed" by quote "trust" in the issuing government, even when the issuing government has relinquished control over the exchange rate, allowing it to be managed instead by the quote "invisible hand" of the market (but again, it is still happening behind the scenes through interest rate adjustments, instead). This is quite ironic. One can easily contextualize this as a broader part of the false dichotomy between fiat and commodity money, and furthermore one can easily examine why people and institutions who do NOT trust the issuing government still are forced to hold onto reserves of fiat for purposes such as tax liabilities and international trade. It really has nothing to do at all with trust, and everything to do with profit, political power, and the maintenance of the underlying structure of class society.
Part 3
The relationship between fiat money and commodity money, particularly in how they both fluctuate in exchange rates with precious metals, adds an absurd layer to the false dichotomy between the two systems. Even when money is considered "commodity-backed," such as under the gold standard or similar systems, the exchange rate between commodity money and precious metals like gold is not fixed. Instead, it fluctuates over time, as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie "declares" a new exchange rate periodically. This is due to the need for periodic government intervention to adjust the official exchange rate to reflect market conditions, and ensure profitable enterprise for the ruling class as a whole. The bourgeois government must "catch up" with market dynamics, adjusting the official money-price of gold or silver to "align with the market's ever-changing supply and demand", (i.e., to align with the ruling class's interests, and the socially necessary labor time underlying the money-commodity).
Ironically, this intervention in commodity money systems mirrors the way fiat money operates. Fiat money, which is supposedly not backed by any physical commodity, is often described as being "backed" by "trust" in the government that issues it. But this trust is not a fixed or guaranteed factor; it’s a dynamic relationship that can shift based on political, economic, and social factors. What’s striking is that despite the government relinquishing control over the exchange rate in a fiat money system (allowing it to be managed by the "invisible hand" instead), fiat money is still said to be "backed" by "trust" in the issuing government. This presents a paradox: governments no longer control the exchange rate of fiat money directly in the same way that they controlled commodity money exchange rates in the past, but they still claim that "trust" in the government somehow underpins the value of the currency. Meanwhile, in secret, the bourgeois government and the private sector it answers to, still controls the money supply through interest rates and quantitative easing, effectively controlling the exchange rates, and obfuscating socially necessary labor time as much as is reasonably possible, while still allowing the bourgeoisie to exchange labor power and other commodities with each other "fairly."
This contradiction highlights the false dichotomy between fiat and commodity money, because the way both types of money are managed, either directly, or indirectly, in relation to precious metals involves a mix of government action and market forces. A "private public partnership" if you will. While commodity money was once thought to be stable due to its backing by a precious metal, that system required periodic government adjustments to reflect the market price of the commodity anyway. Fiat money, on the other hand, is said to derive its value from the "trust" in the "government" but is subject to the market's influence through fluctuating exchange rates while the government instead controls interest rates. The real difference, then, is not the fundamental reliance on market dynamics, but the ideological presentation of that reliance to society at large as either "government-controlled" or "market-driven."
Now, let’s consider why people and institutions who may not trust the issuing government still find themselves holding onto fiat currency, even when they distrust its value. One key reason is that governments, regardless of their economic or political situation, continue to impose taxes that must be paid in fiat money. No matter how unstable or untrustworthy the government may be perceived, it still has the power to demand payment in its own currency, as a basic norm of national sovereignty. This creates a coercive relationship between citizens or businesses and fiat money, as tax liabilities are essentially a demand to hold and transact in fiat currency, regardless of the broader market forces or individual preferences for or against it. It's about coercion more than "trust."
Furthermore, fiat money is the de facto currency used in international trade. Countries that wish to engage in global commerce are often required to hold reserves of fiat currency for transactions, even if they do not trust the issuing government, and even if they are at war with the issuing government. This creates a practical and economic necessity: to trade with other nations, hold foreign reserves, or settle international debts, countries and institutions are compelled to use fiat money, even if they deeply distrust it. This is especially true for the hegemonic currencies of the imperial core, like the US dollar or the euro, which dominate global markets and are used as reserve currencies by central banks around the world. The irony here is that even countries or individuals who might prefer a return to commodity-backed systems are still trapped in the web of fiat money because of the global imperialist framework that has developed around it.
Part 4 (final)
This overlap between """government trust,""" necessity, and market dynamics further complicates the supposed opposition between fiat and commodity money. Both types of money, while framed as distinct, rely on a mixture of government and market influence, albeit in different ways. Fiat money may seem to offer more flexibility because it’s not "tied" to a specific commodity like gold, but this flexibility comes with its own set of risks and challenges, especially when it is subject to the whims of global markets, or governments tampering with interest rates instead of exchange rates. Commodity money, while allegedly more stable due to its tangible backing, still requires government intervention and market adaptation, blurring the lines between government-controlled and market-driven forces. It is the ruling class which controls both government and market. This resolves the false dichotomy by refocusing on the ruling class, and the exploitation of labor for surplus value, regardless of the form taken by money.
In this way, the "fiat vs. commodity money" debate fails to capture the reality of how modern bourgeois economies operate. Both systems are influenced by the same fundamental forces: Government regulation and market dynamics guided by the priorities of the bourgeoisie, as a class. The idea that they are entirely distinct and incompatible fails to account for the complex ways in which they interact, overlap, and evolve over time. The false dichotomy lies in the assumption that these two systems can be understood in isolation, when in fact, they are part of a broader economic system driven by abstract labor and its exploitation by the ruling class. The shift from commodity money to fiat money doesn’t eliminate market dynamics or government involvement; it simply reconfigures the relationship between them. Ultimately, both types of money are inextricably linked to the broader economic and political context in which they operate, which is constantly evolving to reflect new realities. "In every epoch, the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class." The bourgeoisie continues to be the ruling class, whether they directly manage commodity money through exchange rates, or indirectly manage fiat money through interest rates.
To Marx, interest, profit, and rent are all forms of surplus value. Surplus value arises from the exploitation of labor, where workers produce more value during their labor than they receive in wages. This surplus is appropriated by capitalists and divided into different forms: profit for business owners, interest for lenders, and rent for landowners, all of which represent portions of the surplus value created by labor. Central bank management of interest rates ties into Marx's concept of surplus value by influencing the distribution of surplus among different economic actors. By adjusting interest rates, central banks regulate the cost of borrowing, which affects the share of surplus value allocated as interest to lenders versus profit to businesses. Low interest rates may favor industrial capitalists by reducing borrowing costs, while high rates prioritize usurious capitalists by increasing returns on loans. This mechanism indirectly shapes the flow of surplus value within the bourgeoisie, rather than directly. This is the secret of fiat.
As for fiat being "debt," fiat money is often said to "represent debt" because of fractional reserve banking. Banks keep only a fraction of deposits in reserve and lend out the rest, """creating more money""" in the economy by loaning more than they have. This means that most of the money in circulation is actually debt (loans). This is treated as "fictitious capital" in Chapter 25 of Volume 3 of Capital. Marx specifically cites W. Leatham, a banker of Yorkshire, admitting that the bank he worked for in 1839 had liabilities of 153 million payable on demand in gold, but only 14 million in gold reserves. So even when there was still a gold standard, banks were already lending out more than they had in their reserves. Governments doing quantitative easing are basically behaving like banks doing fractional reserve banking. Governments often issue treasury bonds to create more debt, often by printing more money (quantitative easing), which can be seen as a form of debt because it is a promise to pay back in the future with interest. In the modern economy, a significant portion of the money supply is """created""" through the process of lending and borrowing. When banks make loans, they create new money in the form of credit. But if they are lending money that they do not actually have reserves for, they are just gambling the future by overextending credit. The 2008 financial crisis, for example, was partly caused by the overextension of credit and the proliferation of complex financial derivatives that were not backed by real economic value. So if fiat money is debt rather than credit, and leads to crisis, why would people even want it? Because it still functions indistinguishably from liquidity in daily usage and its usage is coerced through billing and tax liabilities.
>>2087961>As for fiat being "debt," fiat money is often said to "represent debt" because of fractional reserve banking. Banks keep only a fraction of deposits in reserve and lend out the rest, """creating more money""" in the economy by loaning more than they have. This means that most of the money in circulation is actually debt (loans). This is treated as "fictitious capital" in Chapter 25 of Volume 3 of Capital. Marx specifically cites W. Leatham, a banker of Yorkshire, admitting that the bank he worked for in 1839 had liabilities of 153 million payable on demand in gold, but only 14 million in gold reserves.Lock the banksters in their empty vaults like Xaro Xhoan Daxos lol.
>Fractional Reserve Banking>Fictitious capitalFractional reserve banking ties into Marxist notions of crisis formation and fictitious capital by enabling the creation of credit and financial instruments that are increasingly disconnected from the actual production of value by labor power. This expansion of fictitious capital becomes a claim on future potential wealth in the form of speculative assets like loans and securities, which then outpace the real economy's capacity to generate surplus value. Overextension of credit creates speculative bubbles, and when these collapse, it triggers a crisis or multiple crises as the fictitious capital is revealed to lack a basis in real value, leading to economic disruptions and the destruction of capital.
Ordinary workers and small time petty bourgeois investors are more likely to get hurt from the collapse of a speculative bubble than the haute bourgeoisie, since they often lack the resources, information, and diversification that big investors use to minimize losses. Large investors may also exit markets early, while ordinary people and small investors bear the brunt of the crash, facing job losses, savings depletion, and economic instability.
Large investors able to leverage insider info to exit the market early, both legally and illegally (and illegal insider trading is very rarely caught, let alone prosecuted). Large investors often have better access to insider information, market trends, and advanced analytics, which can give them an advantage in exiting the market early before a crash. While leveraging insider information illegally is prohibited, their resources and connections often allow them to act on early signals that ordinary investors lack. This is why the generally downwardly mobile and rapidly proletarianizing petty bourgeois investors are delusional when they think they can invest their way into the haute bourgeoisie. What for the haute bourgeoisie is generally speaking a strategy game is for the petty bourgeois investor usually mere gambling, where "the house" almost always wins.
Large investors often use strategies like short selling to profit from the collapse of speculative bubbles, in addition to simply exiting the market early due to their superior means of analytics. Short selling allows them to bet against overvalued assets, earning profits when stock prices fall. Their resources and market insights give them an advantage in identifying and capitalizing on impending crashes. Short selling can subsequently contribute to banks taking on speculative assets as collateral, as these assets may still appear valuable before their collapse. When the bubble bursts, the collateral's value plummets, exposing banks to significant risks and potential losses, amplifying financial instability. Meanwhile the capitalists make off with the liquidity that was the equal of the collateral stock
before it crashed.
When banks are left "holding the bag" due to collapsing speculative assets, governments often step in to bail them out. These bailouts aim to stabilize the financial system, prevent widespread economic fallout, and protect depositors, but they also shield banks and investors from the full consequences of risky behavior. Bailouts then contribute to currency inflation. Governments often fund bailouts by increasing public debt or printing money, which can expand the money supply. If this excess money enters the economy without a corresponding increase in goods and services, it may lead to inflation, reducing the currency's purchasing power.
Some people will call bailouts "socialism for the rich" because they involve using public funds to rescue wealthy institutions and investors from the consequences of their risky behavior. While ordinary people bear the costs through taxes, debt, or inflation, the wealthy benefit from government intervention, creating a system that socializes losses while privatizing profits. They call it that because this process constitutes an upward redistribution of wealth. Public funds, largely sourced from taxes paid by ordinary people, are used to bail out wealthy institutions and investors, transferring resources from the proletariat to the bourgeoisie. This reinforces existing economic inequalities. It creates a feedback loop. Governments enforce demand for fiat currency by requiring taxes to be paid in it. When public funds are used for bailouts benefiting the wealthy, ordinary people bear the burden through taxes or inflation, perpetuating the cycle of upward wealth redistribution and maintaining demand for fiat currency.
>>2088355(TL;DR)
The rich gamble with fake money and win. When they lose, the government bails them out using public money i.e. "Your Tax Dollars", driving up inflation and making life harder for workers. Meanwhile, you’re forced to demand their currency to pay taxes, creating a cycle where the poor subsidize the rich.
>>2088417Marx and Engels kind of invoke an idea similar to the idea of alternative stable states when they combine the notion of modes of production (slave, feudalism, capitalism, socialism) with the notion of quantitative changes giving way to sudden qualitative changes. So for example, Engels uses the analogy of water remaining water even when you raise the temperature, until it hits its boiling point, and then it suddenly begins to boil and evaporate into steam. So a state of matter (which is only relatively stable) is used as an analogy for social systems. Feudalism remained feudalism until the small quantitative changes in the relations of production made it no longer a stable system, causing bourgeois revolution, and a change in the mode of production from feudalism to capitalism, the abolition of serfdom, the creation of a proletariat, etc.
>>2058031>maybe you just have an incorrect theory of money. marx is a thinker of the gold standard, not fiat, so whats your response? have we abolished money, or have we just abolished marx?US fiat pennies are now worth less due to inflation than the copper they contain. If one were smart, one would liquidate one's paychecks by forcing the bank to convert them into pennies (they will do this but will hate you for it) and then melting those pennies down into copper and zinc, and then selling that copper and zinc on the commodities market for their actual value… this is the "magic" of fiat. It inflates so much over time that it actually becomes worth
less than the commodity metals of the coinage.
>>2090504> i've seen too many people turn pennies into tile floors or cover their cars with them or melt them down and make them into swords on youtube.It think what makes it illegal is if you try to resell it as a commodity. So melting pennies into a copper sword isn't illegal, but trying to sell that copper sword online is. Still don't understand how they can tell the difference between freshly mined copper and melted down pennies. Seems hard to prosecute either way.
>>2090763Gemmy. I love memes like that.
From an 1897 speech given to working men in Boston by Daniel De Leon:
"Cheap gas, cheap fares and kindred matters are quite "taking," yet all agitation based upon them, not only leads away from, but is a blunt denial of Socialist principles and aims. Cheapness is among the last things that Socialism is after, because living can not be "cheapened" without the price of labor being proportionally cheapened. It follows from the scientific principle that labor is a merchandise under the capitalist system, that the laws of the market, which rule the price of all merchandise, must also rule the price of the merchandise labor. The smaller the quantity of labor needed to produce an article of merchandise the cheaper it is; if the things needed to keep the workingman alive, and in condition to procreate his species, become cheaper, the merchandise labor-power must become cheaper too.Those who have other things to sell than their own hides may be so much money in if gas, etc., is cheaper; but not the worker. Socialism has not the MARKET for its objective point but the FACTORY, the place where productive work is done. It seeks to put the implements of work in the workers hands; the rest will take care of itself. The municipal agitation for cheapness is a BOURGEOIS AGITATION. Socialism seeks, not to take cheap gas for the workers, knowing that that will only make cheaper workingmen for the capitalist; Socialism seeks to put the gas plant itself and all plants in the hands of the workers, because only so can the worker be rid of the capitalist parasite and keep all that he produces."
is marx worth reading in english? the translator's preface from the latest (2024) english translation of capital makes it sound very intimidating to translate from german, almost to the point where it seems pointless to read it in a tongue other than german… should people learn german before reading capital?
>If Engels applied his own standards to the English version of Capital he edited, that would help explain why he experienced moments of dismay as he guided the project to completion. Early in chapter 1, for example, the neologism and technical concept “Werthgegenständlichkeit” is rendered three different ways in a single short paragraph, and none retains the aggressively nonnatural feel of Marx’s term. In one case, it is translated as “value,” in another as “reality.” We can say something similar about the much more laconic promises that Ben Fowkes made when he intro- nglish translation of Capital, volume 1, which duced the second major E appeared in 1976. In his “Translator’s Preface,” Fowkes claims that Marx and Engels were of one mind about Marx translations, with both prioritizing accessibility above all else. That may—or may not—have made sense in their day, Fowkes asserts; either way, it is now “no longer necessary to water down Capital in order to spare the reader” with respect to “Ger- man philosophical terms.” But while Fowkes’s translation does on the whole sound more technical than the Moore-Aveling edition, there are quite a few places where in dealing with such terms he adopts the solutions they arrived at almost a century earlier. To stay with chapter 1, Fowkes follows his predecessors in rendering the philosophical neologism “Werthding” as the phrase “object of value,” which, you could argue, points readers in the wrong direction. “Object of value” tends to mark a distinction, or to signify that an object has more value than most others, whereas with “Werthding,” Marx wants to name an ontological feature common to all commodities. Below I will say more about both “Werthding” and “Werthgegenständlichkeit,” which I translate as “value-thing” and “value-objecthood,” respectively.
>>2100411Marginal Utility Critique:
Value Depends on Subjective Preferences, Not Labor:
Critics argue that the value of goods and services is not determined by the labor required to produce them but by their utility to consumers.
Carl Menger, William Stanley Jevons, and Léon Walras, pioneers of the marginal revolution, emphasized that value is determined at the margin—how much additional utility a consumer derives from the last unit of a good.
For example, water has low market value despite requiring significant labor in some cases because it is abundant. Conversely, diamonds have high value due to their scarcity and high marginal utility, not the labor required to mine them.
Labor as a Derived, Not Independent, Measure:
LTV assumes that labor is the intrinsic measure of value, but critics argue that the value of labor itself is determined by supply and demand. Labor is only worth what people are willing to pay for the goods it produces.
Problems with the "Socially Necessary Labor" Concept:
The notion of "socially necessary labor time" is ambiguous. What is "necessary" depends on technological, cultural, and social contexts, which vary widely.
Moreover, producers often work inefficiently, but their labor doesn't necessarily add value.
>>2100407typical low effort smugness
>>2100412I don't normally like accusing people of using Chat GPT, especially since it can save you a lot of labor in spending an hour writing an effortpost just to say things others have said before, but, buddy, at least ask chatGPT to format it as a paragraph. It is so obvious you got one of the famouse bullet pointed lists that ChatGPT spits out as an answer.
>Value Depends on Subjective Preferences, Not Labor:Marx's theory of value distinguishes between use value and exchange value. this isn't some secret knowledge, marx says it right there in the opening chapter of capital volume 1. The subjective component of value is use value. The objective component of value is exchange value, which is expressed in the form of a money price. Money price is influenced by factors other than labor, but its primary and most influential component is labor.
If you have a complex material and/or social phenomenon (like production) where many material and/or social factors influence it, and some of those factors are more influential than others, there is a mathematical way to model it, and more influential terms are distinguished from the less influential. that model is linear regression. In linear regression models of production processes, labor inputs are by far the most influential term. But Marx didn't use linear regression models. Although many capitalist and socialist economists after him did, and many used input-output tables (similar to Marx's reproduction schemas or Quesnay's Tableau Economique) to model labor inputs on a macroeconomic level.
As for shit like supply/demand, it is telling that bourgeois economists insist in introductory economics courses that supply and demand "determines" price in a market, when in fact it determines how price
deviates from its "natural" or "equilibrium" price. What determines that "natural" or "equilibrium" price is labor inputs. Bourgeois economists will sometimes say that it's not just labor inputs, but raw materials, transportation, scarcity etc.
Raw materials require labor to find, extract, transport and refine. and the more scarce they are, the more labor they require to find, extract, transport and refine. So this is not a non-labor influence on price by any stretch of the imagination.
And Marx's theory of value, I prefer to call SNLT to distinguish it from the less refined LTV of Smith, Ricardo, Franklin, and many other influences on Marx. Marx was not the origin of the LTV, rather, he refined it beyond classical political economy and took it to its logical conclusion of social revolution. it was the reactionary bourgeoisie who abandoned their own labor theory of value inherited from classical political economy and invented obfuscations like subjective and marginal utility in order to mystify value and suppress class consciousness.
>Critics argue that the value of goods and services is not determined by the labor required to produce them but by their utility to consumersMarx says it's both. A commodity is only a commodity if it has both use value and exchange value, and was produced with social labor, in a capitalist economy, to be sold for profit. Value as SNLT is a property of social labor in a capitalist economy. Without utility, it is not a commodity in the first place. Marx synthesized Use Value and Exchange Value and reactionary bourgeois theorists ignore this synthesis and insist Marx is only talking about exchange value and pretend he doesn't know what use value is. It's shameless obfuscation.
>Carl Menger, William Stanley Jevons, and Léon Walras, pioneers of the marginal revolution, emphasized that value is determined at the margin—how much additional utility a consumer derives from the last unit of a good.It is rich to call marginal utility theory a "revolution." All marginal utility theory hits upon is that the subjective component of value, the use value (not the exchange value) decreases if a consumer has too much of something. It is the recognition of oversupply on the level of an individual consumer. Wow. Timmy was hungry. he ate an apple. He is not hungry anymore. he doesn't want a second apple. his second apple has no use value to him. Wow. Mindblowing. But if he goes to sell the second apple which no longer has use value to him, it will still have exchange value. Because it is still useful to other people.
> For example, water has low market value despite requiring significant labor in some cases because it is abundantaddressed above:
<As for shit like supply/demand, it is telling that bourgeois economists insist in introductory economics courses that supply and demand "determines" price in a market, when in fact it determines how price deviates from its "natural" or "equilibrium" price. What determines that "natural" or "equilibrium" price is labor inputs. Bourgeois economists will sometimes say that it's not just labor inputs, but raw materials, transportation, scarcity etc.
<Raw materials require labor to find, extract, transport and refine. and the more scarce they are, the more labor they require to find, extract, transport and refine. So this is not a non-labor influence on price by any stretch of the imagination.
>LTV assumes that labor is the intrinsic measure of value, but critics argue that the value of labor itself is determined by supply and demand. Labor is only worth what people are willing to pay for the goods it produces.If labor value were "determined" by supply and demand, different types of commodities wouldn't have different equilibrium prices. Supply and demand explain standard deviation away from value as SNLT. Supply and demand "converge" at an equilibrium price, because the equilibrium price is the anchor determined by SNLT. Chronologically, the commodity is manufactured through labor processes before it reaches a market that has certain supply/demand. So the supply and demand is a post-production factor anwyway. Marx is talking about production when he talks about SNLT, not about market fluctuations away from SNLT.
>The notion of "socially necessary labor time" is ambiguous. What is "necessary" depends on technological, cultural, and social contexts, which vary widely.It is not ambiguous because Marx in fact acknowledges that what is necessary depends on context. It is built into the concept. SNLT is the time required on average, in a given society, at a given time, based on the average skill level of the worker, and the average technological methods. He admits massive variations in SNLT depending on things like technology. And he acknowledges that some societies are slower to adapt labor saving technologies than others because of things like cultural and social contexts. He speaks for example about luddites burning machines and attacking the
instruments of production instead of the
mode of production.
>Moreover, producers often work inefficiently, but their labor doesn't necessarily add value.This is the mud pies argument. Of course if someone spends 5 hours doing something that on average takes 1 hour they are not adding value. Marx acknowledges this as well.
You just haven't read Marx.
>>2073480>in periods of hyperinflation for example, a commodity becomes more valuable than the actual currency (i remember one witty though incorrect tweet from stefan molyneux in 2020; "when your currency is toilet paper, toilet paper becomes currency").>>2079293>Don't people with non-hegemonic currencies basically eat shit through hyperinflation when they try to give everyone "free money?"I've been thinking maybe that maybe the tendency of currency to inflate hides the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, particularly when the inflation is driven by currency depreciation. This relates to the interaction between Marx's argument that the rate of profit tends to fall over time due to increasing organic composition of capital (the ratio of constant capital, so machinery, to variable capital, which is labor), and the role of inflation in contemporary fiat economies. There's a been a lot of hay made ITT over fiat and inflation… the anon who was arguing that fiat makes Marx outdated stopped posting a while ago but he made interesting arguments even though I disagreed with them…
When inflation occurs, especially if it’s driven by
money printer go brr, the
nominal value of profits may increase even if the real
inflation-adjusted profit is actually declining. So like, if inflation leads to rising prices of goods and services, the nominal profits of companies might look healthy or even increase, but this could be misleading because the real value of those profits may not reflect the underlying productivity and profitability dynamics. This can create a disconnect between the appearance of a healthy economy and the underlying reality of profitability in productive sectors. So like asset price inflation mostly.
Then there's cost of capital and investment decisions. Inflation fucks with interest rates. rising inflation can reduce real interest rates (if nominal rates don’t rise as fast), which may temporarily reduce the cost of borrowing for companies. This could trigger a bunch of investment from companies that were hesitating to borrow due to high interest rates, and the apparent rate of profit might not fall immediately as expected, therefore masking it. over time, inflation can undermine the real value of capital and wear away the purchasing power of profits, which may ultimately constranshumanist the potential for investment and profitability.
Inflation also impacts wages. If wages don’t keep pace with inflation, this could short-term reduce the cost of labor-power in real terms, improving the rate of profit , but this is often short-lived. Eventually, wages have to catch up, not with inflation necessarily, but they have to stay at subsistence levels, otherwise workers will starve and won't purchase essential commodities, and the productivity gains needed to offset a falling rate of profit become harder to achieve.
ALSO, and this doesn't really apply to the US right now, but could apply to a country like China, a falling rate of profit might be masked in part by currency devaluation in open economies, especially in countries that rely heavily on exports. A devalued currency could temporarily boost the profitability of exporters in nominal terms (because their goods become cheaper on international markets). But this doesn’t necessarily reflect a true rise in productive efficiency or a sustained increase in profit rates.
>>2100407One can observe quite easily why labor is so important without even having the most childlike understanding of use value, exchange value, commodities, money, production, distribution, concrete labor, abstract labor, productive labor, unproductive labor, constant capital, or variable capital.
Consider: Why would the global economy come to a complete halt if all the workers went on strike? And why does the economy continue to function fine even when CEO and board members spend half the year on vacation, and the other half in meetings where they bicker over a handful of decisions about distribution among themselves while not engaging in any productive labor?
>>2101708>constranshumanistCONSTR
AINS
mods… pls…. have mercy with the overzealous word filters
>>2102922This. Irony is, most teachers complain about how their students are dumb and lazy but the way teachers go about their work, they make it seem like their line of work is a matter of life and death.
Alot of teachers try to romanticise/idealise their respective academic study.
Whether it be through essay assignments or group projects.
Yet, outside of school, it has no real world applications.
>>2075758>if men create value, why not machines? Marx's answer is because machines don't exchange their labour as a commodity, so are in effect, artificial slaves.Machines are dead labor. Constant capital. You are stuck where the Ricardians were stuck. This is why David Ricardo's true heir was Marx.
Two contradictions confronted David Ricardo in his primitive labor theory of value which Marx resolved.
1: He could not explain how the exchange of capital for labor, i.e. the hiring workers by a capitalist, was compatible with his LTV. If a worker receives the full "value of his labor" (Ricardo put it this way) i.e. if his wage is equal to the value of the commodity created by his labor, it is impossible to explain profit. If however a worker receives less than the "value of his labor" what about the exchange of equivalents, the law of value?
2: He could not reconcile labor value with the phenomenon of equal profit for equal capital. If value is created by labor alone, commodities on which an equal amount of labor is expended should be sold at approximately equal prices, regardless of the amount of capital used in their production. But this would mean different rates of profit for capital, which was obviously impossible as a long term phenomenon. We know how Marx resolved these contradictions. By recognizing wages are average subsistence while workers sell not their labor but their capacity to labor in the form of the commodity labor power, which is the unique commodity that creates more than its own day's value (subsistence) in a standard shift.
By buying labor power (commodified ability to labor for a set period of time, a shift) the capitalist ordinarily pays the worker the full value of his labor power (subsistence). Thus the exchange between capital and labor takes place in complete accordance with the law of value, which does not exclude the exploitation of the worker by the capitalist. Marx reconciled the law of value with the fact that in real life capitalists' profit is determined not merely by the value of the commodities produced in their factories but by the amount of capital involved. If value is created by labor alone and commodities exchanged roughly at their value, the various branches of production are in entirely different positions. But capital tends to yield a standard rate of profit.
>>2104492When the Bolsheviks took power in 1917, they repudiated the debts of the Tsarist autocracy and Kerensky's provisional government. Lenin declared that the new Soviet government would not recognize or pay the debts incurred by Tsar Nicky's regime, which were largely owed to Western countries and banks. This decision was based on the Bolsheviks' ideology that the debts were imperialist and had been used to oppress the Russian people. The Soviet government argued that the debts were illegitimate and that they would not be bound by the financial obligations of the old regime.
As a result, the Bolsheviks defaulted on the Tsarist government's debts, which were estimated to be around 8 billion gold rubles. This move was seen as a bold and revolutionary step, but it also had significant consequences. The Western powers, including the UK and France, which had lent large sums to the Tsarist government, were furious and refused to recognize the Soviet government. The debt repudiation also made it difficult for the Soviet Union to access international credit and finance for many years, which hindered its economic development. Despite this, the Soviet Union never paid back the Tsarist debts, and the issue remained a point of contention between the Soviet Union and Western countries for decades. Somehow I doubt the western powers would have been much nicer to the Bolsheviks if they had footed Nicky's bill.
>>2102990People confuse academic skills with essential technical skills. We live in an era where more people go to school and for longer times and we are seeing a loss of technical skills. A lot of people don't know how to do tourniquets, grow their own food, do basic plumbing, change car tires,etc.
Also, a lot of teachers don't even really teach outsidd
e of the assigned textbooks.
>>2110015there's 390 posts ITT and several of them have covered this question already.
skeptics of LTV always waltz in and say "prove to me LTV is true according to my very specific criteria. I need a book written by a modern bourgeois economist which says LTV is true."
You aren't going to find that because, as has been discussed over and over again, modern bourgeois economists abandoned LTV precisely because it went against their class interests.
read this post
>>2100466There are also books in this post;
>>2053406I recommend reading "A Science In Its Youth" before even tackling anything else because it explains the entire historical context in the field of economics building up to Marx.
There are plenty of modern Marxian economists who adhere to LTV but if you don't think LTV is "empircially sound" you aren't going to listen to them because they're "biased."
You should elaborate on whether you've even read Capital Volume 1 or even a shorter work like Value price and Profit before opening this discussion because nine times out of 10 people skeptical of LTV aren't even refuting Marx's LTV, but the LTV of earlier thinkers like Smith or Ricardo.
Do you know for instance what constant and variable capital are, or what labor power is and how it is distinct from labor? If you don't you have no business being skeptical of LTV because you don't even understand what LTV is proposing.
In fact you should read Marx so you can at least elaborate on what parts of
his "LTV" you're rejecting since there's multiple "LTV" in the history of "political economy" AKA "economics" as it was once called.
>>2115363watched the whole thing
>Friedman vs. Keynesah so framing it as giga-reactoid bourgeois vs "left" bourgeois theory
>1 time cash injectiondoesn't fix the root problem
>muh inflation not a problem if you have a planned economy and no commodity form
>muh small businesses>muh demand>muh barbers555 come on now
>>2123160Because not all depositors need their money back at the same time. If they need more money than the bank has on hand, the bank can borrow more from other banks, and if the other banks are tapped out, there is a national central bank.
If everyone is tapped out, it's called a bank run and is the cause of financial crises.
>>2123709It's more like a financial nuclear reactor these days. Banks are obligated to hold a certain percentage of capital to meet the demands of depositors, and the system works under normal financial circumstances.
In extremes, however, bank runs still happen, banks end up collapsing, and we have financial contagion.
Perhaps, in essence, fractional reserve banking is the heart of modern capitalism and all finance reproduces its form fractally.
>>2124065>Perhaps, in essence, fractional reserve banking is the heart of modern capitalism and all finance reproduces its form fractally.That's an interesting thought. The traditional Marxist historiography of capitalism traces its origins to the enclosure of the commons in England, which led to the filling of the cities (pol pot in reverse lol) and the rapid industrialization of English society, and the proletarianization of the former peasantry.
But your historiography of capitalism is pointing towards Fractional Reserve Banking as its core, which has its origins in John Law's French system of the 1720s. Though Law was still an Englishman he was only able to get backing for his ideas in France at the time.
>>2124198MMT and Keynesianism for the haute bourgeoisie
austerity for the proles
Fucking around with deepseek and asked it about commodity money vs fiat. First question was just me declaring myself a communist and asking it to define communism.
>me: sweet, hey so my friends and I are arguing about gold and fiat currency. I say there's no such thing as fiat currency since all currency is fiat. it just represents exchange value not actual value even if it has actual SNLT. what do you think?
<deepseek: Your argument touches on a nuanced and fascinating topic in economics and monetary theory. Let’s break it down and explore the concepts of fiat currency, gold (commodity money), and the idea of exchange value versus actual value.
—
<### 1. What is Fiat Currency?
Fiat currency is money that has no intrinsic value—it is not backed by a physical commodity like gold or silver. Its value derives from government decree (fiat) and the trust people place in the issuing authority. Examples include the US dollar, the euro, and most modern currencies.
<- Key feature: Fiat currency is not tied to any physical asset; its value is based on supply and demand, government regulation, and public confidence.
—
<### 2. Commodity Money (e.g., Gold)
Commodity money, like gold, has intrinsic value because it is a physical good with uses outside of being a medium of exchange. Gold has industrial, decorative, and cultural value, and its scarcity contributes to its perceived worth.
<- Key feature: Commodity money has value independent of its use as currency. Its value is tied to its physical properties and the labor required to produce it (SNLT, or socially necessary labor time, as Marx would say).
—
<### 3. Your Argument: "All Currency is Fiat"
You’re suggesting that even commodity money like gold derives its value from its role as a medium of exchange and the social agreement around its worth, rather than any inherent "actual value." This is a valid philosophical point:
<- Exchange Value vs. Actual Value: Even gold’s value is not entirely "intrinsic" in an absolute sense. Its value is socially constructed—it’s valuable because people agree it’s valuable and because it’s scarce. If society stopped valuing gold, it would lose much of its worth, despite its physical properties.
- Marx’s Perspective: Marx argued that value (including the value of money) is rooted in socially necessary labor time (SNLT). In this view, even gold’s value is tied to the labor required to extract and refine it, not just its physical properties.
—
<### 4. Counterpoint: Fiat vs. Commodity Money
While your argument has merit, there’s still a distinction between fiat currency and commodity money:
<- Fiat Currency: Its value is entirely based on trust and government backing. It has no intrinsic value and is not redeemable for a physical commodity.
- Commodity Money: Its value is tied to a physical good with uses outside of being money. Even if its value is socially constructed, it has a tangible basis in its physical properties and scarcity.
—
<### 5. What Do I Think?
Your perspective is insightful and aligns with a more philosophical or Marxist view of money. In essence, all money is socially constructed, whether it’s fiat or commodity-based. Even gold’s value depends on collective agreement about its worth. However, the distinction between fiat and commodity money lies in the tangible backing of the latter.
<- Fiat Currency: Value is purely abstract and based on trust.
- Commodity Money: Value is tied to a physical good, even if that good’s value is also socially constructed.
<So, while you could argue that all currency is "fiat" in the sense that its value is socially agreed upon, the term "fiat currency" specifically refers to money that lacks any physical backing.
—
<### 6. Practical Implications
- Fiat Currency: Allows for greater flexibility in monetary policy (e.g., printing money, adjusting interest rates) but is vulnerable to inflation if mismanaged.
- Commodity Money: Limits inflation and government manipulation but is less flexible and can constrain economic growth.
—
<In conclusion, your argument is thought-provoking and highlights the social nature of money. While all currency relies on collective agreement about its value, the distinction between fiat and commodity money lies in the tangible backing of the latter. So, in a sense, you’re right—all money is "fiat" in that its value is socially constructed, but the term "fiat currency" specifically refers to money without physical backing.
>>2129501>i was just listening to a critique of the LTV and it struck me that when someone implies that a capitalist takes on riskpic related lol
>they are saying that the labour of the capitalist denotes a value of its own, which manifests as profits. so even in combatting the LTV, the LTV is defended except that it includes entrepeneurial labourIn theories of surplus value marx talks about the idea of "labor of superintendence" and points out that the more developed a capitalist economy is, the less "labor of superintendence" a capitalist does, because more and more of it is done by employees who act in a managerial fashion, i.e. middle managers, who are not capitalists, but do constitute what Barbara Ehrenreich called a "Professional Managerial Class."
So that "labor" is labor, but in a socialist economy you wouldn't really get paid "the big bucks" to do it, it would just be another job. honestly task delegation and conflict resolution wouldn't even rely on one managerial person but could be done collectively by the workers.
>marx in capital vol. 1 alternately sees apologia concerning profits as a method of saving; profits are a means of the capitalist delaying his gratification. this in contemporary terms is called "time-preference". such are the same arguments in this videoDid you forget to post the video?
>either profits emerge from a uniquely entepeneurial labour or as a uniquely moral investment into the future.they can honestly say it's both and get away with it most of the time. I've also seen people say usury is "protecting yourself against inflation when you let someone borrow your money"
>it couldnt just be what adam smith says, that profits are a subtraction from potential wages? its the most self-evident point ever. people want to be selfish without admitting theyre selfish. thats whats frustrating. even ayn rand had to qualify her morality as *rational* selfishness to make sense of her contradiction. all men are selfish, but to her, only great men are rationally selfish.if people were naturally selfish they would never have children and engage in the massive time and resource sacrifice of wiping their asses, comforting them when they're crying, raising them to behave normally, etc. Not to mention all the voluntary acts of kindness people do, and the labor they do for free.
>thus, means and ends become confused, like how the "investor" and "gambler" are the same person until the final result.yup lol
>>2129558i can grant the concept of an entrepeneurial labour, but in this case, it still prefigures its value as a labour of its own, thus imploding apologists who bring it up. and yes the PMC (CEOs, etc.) act as superintendents with integral roles to production. i think its irresponsible when socialists pretend that "worker ownership" somehow means abolishing managers. its part of the same richard wolff bullshit that "workplace democracy" is an alternative to state central planning (which in essence is impersonal since it must give treatment of social needs, not just personal preference). marx also criticises "bourgeois socialists" like the lassaleans in "critique of the gotha program" for thinking that socialism = redistribution.
>if people were naturally selfish they would never have children and engage in the massive time and resource sacrifice of wiping their asseswell the steelman is that parenting is just a form of "investment" into a child's future profits. but as i say, my issue isnt in the concept of selfishness; its dishonesty. be selfish, but at least dont lie.
>videovidrel
>>2129592>i can grant the concept of an entrepeneurial labour, but in this case, it still prefigures its value as a labour of its own, thus imploding apologists who bring it up. That's a really good point and not one made often enough. The usual counterargument would be that under monopoly capitalism and imperialism the capitalist ceases to engage in "entrepreneurial labor" that is typically characteristic of a small business owner, but this is an even better counter-argument because it
refocuses the argument on labor as the primary influence on any price formation. The best refutations disallow the moving of goalposts by refocusing on the original point, and I think this achieves that.
> and yes the PMC (CEOs, etc.) act as superintendents with integral roles to production. i think its irresponsible when socialists pretend that "worker ownership" somehow means abolishing managers.Right. Management is a form of labor, it's just a form of labor which under our current mode of production is rewarded far above its own subsistence and in some cases even receives a portion of surplus value because of the way it serves as insulation between workers and owners. The primary function of the managerial class under capitalism is not actually to delegate tasks and resolve conflicts, but to insulate owners from workers. Workers almost never speak to owners. Management acts as their communicative shield almost as much as a security guard acts as their bodily shield.
>its part of the same richard wolff bullshit that "workplace democracy" is an alternative to state central planning (which in essence is impersonal since it must give treatment of social needs, not just personal preference). marx also criticises "bourgeois socialists" like the lassaleans in "critique of the gotha program" for thinking that socialism = redistribution.I do think worker cooperatives are a powerful tool just like unions. It's just that they shouldn't be seen as the end-goal. Wolff pushes cooperatives as "workplace democracy" because it's a good entry point for getting people to ask questions like "Why do I get to vote on who leads my government, but I don't get to vote on who leads my workplace?"
>>2129558>£150k per year is a comically large amount for a British construction company bossWhat went so wrong?
Also, can you elaborate more on the "labor of superintendence" in regards to socialist ideas? I understand that it is further task delegation that arises from a service economy, but "the managerial class" is an idea that everyone seems to complain about.
>>2132870>this is an even better counter-argument because it refocuses the argument on labor as the primary influence on any price formationi think what LTV activists also have to do is contextualise labour in terms of supply and demand. what we call "unskilled labour" is just "common labour" or "available labour". again, i heard another free market apologist attempt to base labour (and therefore salary) on "intelligence" or "knowledge". higher skilled labour was equated with more intelligent labour, but this misses the object. "skilled labour" in market terms is ultimately scarce labour. you can argue with libertarians on this logic then.
>The primary function of the managerial class under capitalism is not actually to delegate tasks and resolve conflicts, but to insulate owners from workers. Workers almost never speak to ownersread james burnham's "the managerial revolution". the real "owners" of business are faceless, international shareholders. there are no individual "capitalists" anymore, but just the global body of capital that invests in various companies.
>I do think worker cooperatives are a powerful tool just like unionsi completely disagree. they are both petty bourgeois institutions. just as opportunistic as every trotskyist communist party selling its "newspaper" and pins. makes my skin crawl.
>Why do I get to vote on who leads my government, but I don't get to vote on who leads my workplace?my point in defending managers is that ground workers *shouldnt* get a vote in those necessary affairs. "workplace democracy" is dystopian nonsense where the personal and professional fuse. just give me a set of tasks instead so i can go home early.
>>2135026>i think what LTV activists also have to do is contextualise labour in terms of supply and demand. what we call "unskilled labour" is just "common labour" or "available labour". again, i heard another free market apologist attempt to base labour (and therefore salary) on "intelligence" or "knowledge". higher skilled labour was equated with more intelligent labour, but this misses the object. "skilled labour" in market terms is ultimately scarce labour. you can argue with libertarians on this logic then.As already noted elsewhere ITT "scarcity" is just a roundabout way of saying "more labor time." It takes more labor time to find and extract scarce raw materials. In terms of "scarce labor" it just takes more labor time to educate and train a highly educated/skilled laborer. A day's labor power is valued at its subsistence, but produces more than its subsistence. A skilled laborer requires roughly the same amount of subsistence to survive as an unskilled laboer (a certain amount of food, water, shelter). However the difference is that the skilled laborer went into debt getting an education to pay for tuition, i.e. the service of the teachers, as well as the commodities of education like books, materials, etc. plus the interest if they got a student loan. In a society where you spend outrageous amounts on education, you expect a high salary so you can pay off that student debt before you die. A lot of people in the USA aren't done paying off their student loans for their masters degrees and PhDs until they're in old age. Sometimes they die first. The "scarcity" here is just the labor of getting educated which is performed unpaid by the student before they become a worker. Not to mention literal unpaid internships.
>read james burnham's "the managerial revolution". the real "owners" of business are faceless, international shareholders. there are no individual "capitalists" anymore, but just the global body of capital that invests in various companies.I'll check it out
>>2135047>scarcity is just a roundabout way of saying more labor timeif that were the case, then surely marx would just appeal to the market, and see prices as objectively reflecting an investment in SNLT. marx instead speaks of certain market prices for nonvaluable goods (like uncultivated land) and says that these items derive "imaginary prices" (which in smithian terms, would simply be a commodity's "nominal" or market-price rather than its "real" or natural-price). marx gives no solution however, which is part of his theoretical failure (in that he gives no account as to the properties of "imaginary prices" as opposed to "real prices", and therefore between imaginary and real values). if we instead reverse your formula that scarcity = high SNLT, then we can reliably say that high SNLT = scarcity, and thus draw scarcity as the axis of valuation in a market, for all goods, and not just labour (which thus also includes artificial scarcity into its schema). instead of speaking of "labour time" just speak of "investment", and then you correct your abstractions by basing it in money. yes, student loans are forms of investment, and most are not paid off because they are bad investments. the "time" spent in education is immaterial to its practical ends. this is why "labour time" as a concept of value only makes sense where it concerns the price of labour in the wage, but has no measurable existence outside this relation.
>>2135048cooperatives cant compete with corporations, so they have no future. am i bursting your bubble? i have no patience for small-business socialism. and yes, managers are very important, thats why capital has put the fate of the world in their hands.
>>2135097>cooperatives cant compete with corporations, so they have no future. am i bursting your bubble?You are repeating reactionary "common sense" without investigation. You have to compare like with like. For example, restaurants have a very low survival rate in general. So what does it prove to you when
one co-op restaurant goes out of business? It only proves to you something if you are committed to seeing what you want to see. Cooperatives have higher survival rates than non-cooperatives. There are few cooperatives because their birth rate is low.
>>2135109>if for example, 7 years of schooling takes 20 years to pay offthe period of loan repayment depends on the interest rate as well as the amount borrowed.
>a bachelors from harvard is worth a million times more than a PhD from trump university. so scarcity (or supply in relation to demand) is what qualifies price.that has less to do with scarcity and more to do with whether the institution in question is actually capable of providing you with useful training. And comparing an obvious scam degree mill like Trump University to Harvard is dishonest. generally speaking, if I were a porky looking to higher someone with a bachelor's in computer science, I would actually be just as likely to hire a guy with a from my local university as a guy from harvard. That's a more honest comparison.
>>2160622>the period of loan repayment depends on the interest rate as well as the amount borrowed. right, which have nothing to do with SNLT. if we take credit relations to imply *future* value then maybe, but this is an economic ambiguity; what exactly is the natural rate of interest? like i say, when we compare a local university and harvard, the credit systems display different investments, but can this be objectively founded, or is it just a property of scarcity (supply/demand)? lets think of parking spaces for example. it is an inherently limited commodity, and so is priced based on scarcity, not "labour-time". some goods are purely market goods, but at the same time, all goods are on the market…
>>2163505>labour-timeyou mean the cost of labour-time, surely?
you cant measure labour-time in commodity-production, but only wages as a primary transaction.
>That's why debates over it frustrate me sometimesthe truth does frustrate people
>The system is still abusive either way and the working class still needs to do the same thing either way.machines work the most in today's global economy, its just that men need extra resources to sustain themselves. the concerns of labour are just the concerns of compensation for labour.
>>2163704>what exactly is the natural rate of interest?either there isn't a natural rate of interest, or it's the rate of inflation over the period of repayment, in order to guarantee that the loan-giver gets the full purchasing power of their money back, in which case it wouldn't really be interest, and the effective interest rate would be 0% ignoring inflation
>the truth does frustrate peoplewhen capitalists dispute LTV, it's to deny exploitation and uphold the mode of production as natural and eternal. If you have a different political purpose in mind for disputing LTV, you need to make it clear what that is.
>machines work the most in today's global economy, its just that men need extra resources to sustain themselves. the concerns of labour are just the concerns of compensation for labour.Machines are products of past labor, require future labor to maintain, and often become obsolete in the production process before they have their entire value exhausted through physical wear and tear.
>>2166104>either there isn't a natural rate of interest, or it's the rate of inflation over the period of repayment"inflation" doesnt really exist, only counterfeiting and underpayment does. when consumer prices rise in an economy, they typically rise at the same scale. if wages were adjusted for inflation then, prices would become "lowered" even if denominated at a higher rate (since purchasing power is relative, not absolute - conservatives promote the alternative autism that money used to be more "valuable" back in the day, even though everyone had less of it - this is a form of mercantlism, like trump's protectionism, which is synonymous with the reactionary fetish for a hard currency).
lets look at the japanese yen for example, which seems to be an "inflated" currency (150 JPY to 1 USD), but in reality, is just denominated differently - if prices rise by 100% yet wages also rise by 100% then there's no issue, but if wages rise unevenly, you can claim exploitation. the truth about interest is that it is supposed to denote future rewards for investment, or elsewise be a surcharge on the initial investment, like "shipping costs" - you pay more due to the costs of transport; bridge tolls also fulfill this purpose. from the perspective of the LTV, what you should be saying is that interest, or credit, obscures labour-values in the form of prices, or to put it differently, interest payments exploit surplus labour so as to pay back an initial labour investment (such as, paying for 3 years of schooling by 3 years salary in a chosen field, but as we see, most people never pay back their debts, showing surplus-labour exploitation). my claim however is that if credit relations can be terminated (by abolishing debt), then they do not originally denote a value-relation, and so involve no labour exploitation, unlike the idea that one is exploited ipso facto (after the fact) of him receiving a wage. so then, interest, like profit, is a rent on value - this is a tricky argument with marxists however, since profits are considered "surplus value", when i just consider profits deductions from potential wages. thus, in large industry, you can either hire more people, or pay your existing workers more.
>when capitalists dispute LTV, it's to deny exploitation and uphold the mode of production as natural and eternalthat might by their rhetoric, but it isnt their reasoning, as i have already demonstrated. the man who believes that profits emerge from a capitalist's own entrepeneurial value still believes that a special form of labour has been imbued into the final product; so they believe in the LTV, but in reverse. this is also why libertarians will claim labour exploitation, but an exploitation against the entrepeneur themselves. hoppe for example says that marx is completely right, except that its the government exploiting the public, not capitalists exploiting workers. this logic of managerial labour is also added into the structure of corporations, which pay CEOs a wage, the difference being that his "surplus" is derived from capital gains, not income. this is also why income taxes dont affect the rich, yet a wealth tax would. conservatives are right then that income taxes serve to erase the middle class, by misdiagnosing the root of wealth inequality, which first begins with land.
>If you have a different political purpose in mind for disputing LTV, you need to make it clear what that is. >"political"how about economic disputations? if we expand "labour" to encompass machine labour, then you are on my side, but marxists dont believe machines are capable of producing value, so…
>Machines are products of past labor, require future labor to maintain, and often become obsolete in the production process before they have their entire value exhausted through physical wear and tear.humans require animal and plant foods to build energy, so where is man in the midst of his own repair? you are not allowing for qualitative distinction between things, and so attempt to conceptualise the world of man as the product of his own labour, which is anthropocentric drivel. did man create the air he breathes or the ground upon which he walks? this is the work of nature, which marx remarks upon - but sees it as non-valuable, why? this is the ultimate marxist question. what makes man a creature capable of producing value? its because only man exchanges for his labour power. machines dont exchange for their cost of repairs and so are not included in value-relations. unread marxists often foolishly assert otherwise; that man is actually more productive than machines, or that machines are just derivative of man's own labour, yet man himself is not the product of his own labour, and so its circular nonsense, and why most marxists become metaphysicians attempting to parse out the human essence. this is why value to marx has a "purely social reality". my larger point is that machines can in principle be included into "social labour", therefore making them workers. if "non-productive" workers are "valuable", why not machines?
>>2167118>that might by their rhetoric, but it isnt their reasoning, as i have already demonstrated. the man who believes that profits emerge from a capitalist's own entrepeneurial value still believes that a special form of labour has been imbued into the final product; so they believe in the LTV, but in reverse. this is also why libertarians will claim labour exploitation, but an exploitation against the entrepeneur themselves. hoppe for example says that marx is completely right, except that its the government exploiting the public, not capitalists exploiting workers. this logic of managerial labour is also added into the structure of corporations, which pay CEOs a wage, the difference being that his "surplus" is derived from capital gains, not income. this is also why income taxes dont affect the rich, yet a wealth tax would. conservatives are right then that income taxes serve to erase the middle class, by misdiagnosing the root of wealth inequality, which first begins with land. lolberts don't have their own "reverse" LTV. Just because they claim that entrepreneurs deserve to be compensated in the billions for being "risk taking job creators who innovate" doesn't mean this claim constitutes some kind of special LTV. They haven't thought through it that hard. They don't have a notion of socially necessary labor time. They have a theory of force. They think the entrepreneur deserves billions because he has them. It's a situation that justifies itself. Might makes right. The rhetoric about risk taking innovative job creators is not a claim about the value of managerial labor, it's just window dressing.
>>2169288decrease in purchasing power is proportional as i have already shown; what "decreases" most essentially is wages however. there is no "inflation" thus, only an obscurity of the real economy.
>>2169296>lolberts don't have their own "reverse" LTV.yes they do. ayn rand believed that intellectual property was legitimate since the product of the mind is imparted into the product. it is a metaphysical theory of value tied to labour, just like marxists.
>It's a situation that justifies itselfyes its tautological, like all transformation problems.
>>2169870>ayn rand believed that intellectual property was legitimate since the product of the mind is imparted into the product. yes
> it is a metaphysical theory of value tied to labour, just like marxists.… what
>>2169883just call it "re-denomination" instead. you think lowering the money supply helps workers in any way? thats conservative nonsense.
>>2169886reading comprehension issue?
>>2169890>you think lowering the money supply helps workers in any way?No. I'm just saying that when people say "inflation" they mean the interlinked phenomena of rising prices, decreasing real wages, resulting from an increase of the money supply through quantitative easing, used to service national debt and subsidize business.
>just call it "re-denomination" instead I don't get how saying "inflation isn't real, call it poopoopeepee instead" is anything but a semantic gesture
>reading comprehension issue?You said Ayn Rand and Marxists both embrace a "metaphysical" theory of value. Marxism rejects metaphysics.
<To the metaphysician, things and their mental reflexes, ideas, are isolated, are to be considered one after the other and apart from each other, are objects of investigation fixed, rigid, given once for all. He thinks in absolutely irreconcilable antitheses. His communication is 'yea, yea; nay, nay'; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." For him, a thing either exists or does not exist; a thing cannot at the same time be itself and something else. Positive and negative absolutely exclude one another; cause and effect stand in a rigid antithesis, one to the other.
<At first sight, this mode of thinking seems to us very luminous, because it is that of so-called sound commonsense. Only sound commonsense, respectable fellow that he is, in the homely realm of his own four walls, has very wonderful adventures directly he ventures out into the wide world of research. And the metaphysical mode of thought, justifiable and necessary as it is in a number of domains whose extent varies according to the nature of the particular object of investigation, sooner or later reaches a limit, beyond which it becomes one-sided, restricted, abstract, lost in insoluble contradictions. In the contemplation of individual things, it forgets the connection between them; in the contemplation of their existence, it forgets the beginning and end of that existence; of their repose, it forgets their motion. It cannot see the woods for the trees.- Engels, Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, Chapter 2, Dialectics
>>2169901>Nookay so we have no issues
>I don't get how saying "inflation isn't real, call it poopoopeepee instead" is anything but a semantic gestureyou can call it inflation, but "inflation" is a secondary attribute of the primary order of devaluation. conservatives like to take its appearance as its essence.
>Marxism rejects metaphysics. this is like saying christians are good people since Jesus told us to love people. the LTV is metaphysical from its foundations since it asserts a substance permeating the economy which cannot be directly observed. we can measure prices, but not labour-values. we can measure intelligence as a means to an end, but not an end in-itself.
>>2169910>"inflation" is a secondary attribute of the primary order of devaluation. conservatives like to take its appearance as its essence.ok fair
>this is like saying christians are good people since Jesus told us to love people.nah, wtf
>the LTV is metaphysical from its foundations since it asserts a substance permeating the economy which cannot be directly observed.abstract labor does exist, yes. whether Marx's theory is
exactly 100% unequivocally right or not, it remains a fact that the working class on average produces a surplus above their own subsistence about which it has no say. Marx himself never referred to his own theory of value (as socially necessary labor time, i.e. as the equilibrium price of the commodity before market factors like supply and demand) as a "labour theory of value" even once. That's just the popular name it gets called by in heterodox economics, which is weird since that causes it to get confused with Smith and Ricardo's LTV.
>we can measure intelligence as a means to an end, but not an end in-itself.not really understanding how this relates to the previous sentence, sorry
Also I like how value itself never became the subject of such relentless skepticism in bourgeois economics until Marx. Right up till Marx, bourgeois economics had labor-based theories of value. After Marx suddenly bourgeois economists want to embrace subjective theories of value because they don't like class society being questioned so they question the existence of value as existing and being measurable.
>>2170190>This value is a social construct arising from production processes under capitalism, not an inherent, unobservable essence.value to marx is not inherent to capitalism alone, but all systems which establish the value form. commodity exchange to marx signifies the exchange of equivalents, from barter (the elementary value form) to the money form of value. and to marx, value is in-itself (as abstract labour) an unobservable entity, which has to be expressed in a concrete commodity.
>While prices (exchange values) are observable and fluctuate, they are regulated by underlying labor-valuestell me how they relate. solve the transformation problem.
>Marx distinguishes between labor as a substance (which he rejects) and labor as a measure of value (which he incorporates)he doesnt "reject" any facet of labour, but sees its concrete form in the commodity as necessary by its twofold division
>The LTV is not metaphysical because it is grounded in concrete social relations and processes, aligning with a dialectical, materialist approach.you do realise that you are just a religious person reciting mantras, right? but dont feel alone, most christians have never read their holy books either.
>>2170153>nah wtfyou are directly associating the words of your prophet to the beliefs of his believers.
>whether Marx's theory is exactly 100% unequivocally right or not, it remains a fact that the working class on average produces a surplus above their own subsistence about which it has no saymarx did not invent the idea of labour being exploited by capitalists. adam smith already predated him by a century. marx just confuses the theory of exploitation with jargon and nonsense which his religious believers have to feebly defend.
>Marx himself never referred to his own theory of value (as socially necessary labor time, i.e. as the equilibrium price of the commodity before market factors like supply and demand) as a "labour theory of value" even once.are you implying that marx equated "value" with the "natural price" of commodities? lets read what he says about that,
>"average prices do not directly coincide with the values of commodities, as Adam Smith, Ricardo, and others believe." [capital vol. 1, chapter 5, footnote 24]marx did not share smith and ricardo's LTV, which is his primary error.
>not really understanding how this relates to the previous sentence, sorry theres no such thing as intellectual labour in the abstract, since it is immeasurable until it is given a concrete form, just like labour power. therefore, claiming that man possesses labour power before the fact of production is a metaphysical (first principles) claim as to what is exchanged.
>Right up till Marx, bourgeois economics had labor-based theories of value.cost-of-production theories of value*
>suddenly bourgeois economists want to embrace subjective theories of value because they don't like class society being questioned so they question the existence of value as existing and being measurable.you are quite dense. no one denies the existence of economic value, but they only dispute its source. the classicalists and marginalists both measure value in the economy as an "objective" factor (where the price-point still constitutes a relation of supply and demand). marxists however presume the existence of an abstract labour that is immeasurable until after the fact of its concrete expression, and is thus only expressed in price. but if values become prices, then why not lead with price instead, since it just becomes the same difference? but if you are to say that price and values are irreconcilable entities, then you admit that "value" is immeasurable in-itself, and this is marxism's failure. the issue then becomes one of unfalsifiability and/or incompleteness. but if not, tell me how marxism could hypothetically be disproven.
>>2171434to be truthful
>>2171440are you seriously suggesting that marx founded the concept of economic value?
>>2171643so you have no arguments, i guess?
im proven right once again.
>>2171798>which other systems establish the value form?every economic system (of commodity exchange) to marx establishes the value form (or medium of commodity exchange). he speaks of this in capital vol. 1, chapter 1, section 3, where the value form has 4 modes:
A - the elementary form (barter)
B - the expanded form
C - the general form (which establishes the universal equivalent)
D - the money form (which establishes price)
marx then further discusses the development of the money form, first in chapter 2, where it has a twofold use-value as a commodity: special and formal.
then in chapter 3 he develops the money form into a "measure of value" and "standard of price", that distinguises itself in a particular (local) form and a universal (international) form. locally, you have coin and globally you have bullion. in this form to marx, does the value-form achieve its final mode.
now, dont forget that marx wants to abolish the value form by abolishing commodity exchange. this is why marx is favourable to labour certificates in "critique of the gotha program" since it is a medium of exchange, but not a value form. so exchange =/= commodity exchange (like how to marx, there are "imaginary prices" in the economy for "valueless" items). so then, to marx, the value form only arises when an item's use and exchange value are alienated from each other by the division of labour, which then manifests the commodity.
>>2172456>every economic system (of commodity exchange)only capitalism has generalized commodity exchange. commodity exchange is secondary in earlier modes of production
>the 4 modeshe is using a "mode of expression" to explain money but does not assert this is entirely historical. in fact he points out that in hunter gatherer societies (primitive communism to marx) barter only took place between bands of hunter gatherers, not between individuals in hunter gatherer society. Exchange was rare, while collective ownership was more common. see this post
>>2056418 >>2172456also having had many exchanges with you, some of them hostile, some of them not, some of them involving 3rd and 4th anons also jumping in, I wanna say I don't think everyone "gets you" and you should probably talk more about
what you would like people to DO i.e. strategy, and less about how Marx is wrong (theory), which makes people just kneejerk think you're a reactionary.
>>2180246>only capitalism has generalized commodity exchange. commodity exchange is secondary in earlier modes of production.yes i agree.
>he is using a "mode of expression" to explain money but does not assert this is entirely historicalso his analysis is ahistorical conjecture? at least we can agree there.
>Exchange was rare, while collective ownership was more commonyes, as he writes in chapter 2 of capital vol. 1,
>"But such a state of reciprocal independence has no existence in a primitive society based on property in common, whether such a society takes the form of a patriarchal family, an ancient Indian community, or a Peruvian Inca State. The exchange of commodities, therefore, first begins on the boundaries of such communities, at their points of contact with other similar communities, or with members of the latter.">>2180252idgaf if people think im "reactionary" for simply and stubbornly being academically precise. marx was wrong and that is a truth that should be taken as an end in-itself, just like the statement "the bible is factually incorrect". will you then cry foul at this far more controversial judgement?
so your false prophet is dead… now what? that is the responsibility of "marxists" to get their act together, not my own paternal offerings of an alternative. if i argued with a christian that his bible is wrong, should i gently push him toward the quran? i think instead he should re-think his worldview, not jump to "solutions" to his current crisis. my whole project has been to be a mirror to the uneducated, to make them humble and to make them think for themselves - but instead, stupidity appears to be an immovable object driven by dogmatism. you cant argue a man out of faith. thats what you have to learn. i have already given alternative economic explanations based in the classical school of economics (which marx is NOT a part of, but a critic of), so my "strategies" are clear, which is to bring honesty to biased discussions.
>>2182591the irony. how many people imagine marx invented any of the terms he used, and then have to work back through an orthodox education of economic theory to make sense of him? and neoclassical =/= neoliberal. neoliberalism comes out of the chicago school, which is monetarist (right-wing keynesian). in keynes' 1930s text "essays in persuasion", he calls his own project "new liberalism" for example. the main adherents of the chicago school are thomas sowell, milton friedman and david friedman. their methodology is empirical, while the austrian methodology is rationalistic.
>>2182589its not an either/or though
and as im sure ive mentioned, marx can be very important, even if ultimately incorrect, just like the bible. i dont suggest throwing out the baby out with the bath water in any case.
an interesting case of comes to me now in remembering engels' preface for capital vol. 3 in discussing a certain "professor lexis" and his understanding of marx;
>"It is evident that the problem has not in any way been solved here, but has, though somewhat loosely and shallowly, been on the whole correctly formulated. And this is, indeed, more than we could have expected from a man who, like the above author, takes a certain pride in being a vulgar economist"my complaint is generally like this. marxists are "vulgar economists", but pledge loyalty to an esoteric doctrine, like how catholics have faith in Christ, but the priests read aquinas. yes, you can capture marx in a rationalist or inductive method of reasoning, but this also comes at the expense of accepting what is unwritten. and more succinctly, i think that all vulgar loyalties one can hold to marx, can be achieved much better with smith. as i write here for example,
>>2162545the most favourable reading of marx is as a cost-of-production theorist, yet he directly contradicts this, and so is unintelligible, where it concerns issues like the transformation problem. marx's most direct criticism of "bourgeois economy" is in chapter 19 of capital vol. 1, where he says that the bourgeois economist takes the appearance of values for their essences - but this is the final result anyhow, where values become wages and surplus becomes profits.
>"For the rest, in respect to the phenomenal form, “value and price of labour,” or “wages,” as contrasted with the essential relation manifested therein, viz., the value and price of labour-power, the same difference holds that holds in respect to all phenomena and their hidden substratum. The former appear directly and spontaneously as current modes of thought; the latter must first be discovered by science. Classical Political Economy nearly touches the true relation of things, without, however, consciously formulating it. This it cannot, so long as it sticks in its bourgeois skin. [capital vol. 1, chapter 19]" >>2182585>idgaf if people think im "reactionary" for simply and stubbornly being academically precise. marx was wrong and that is a truth that should be taken as an end in-itself, just like the statement "the bible is factually incorrect". will you then cry foul at this far more controversial judgement?
>so your false prophet is dead… now what?… anon that's what I was asking YOU and you just dodged the question
<what you would like people to DO i.e. strategy
>hat is the responsibility of "marxists" to get their act together, not my own paternal offerings of an alternative.but if you tell people they're wrong and don't offer any kind of alternative they'll think you're just shitting on their thing but that you have nothing else to say. if all your effort goes into proving marx wrong but you don't actually have an alternate solution to proletarian revolution, people are just going to think you're a reactionary. it's also weird you're so focused on owning a very small percent of the population on a very obscure board in a very theory-oriented way but you have nothing to say about practice.
>>2182610So what you're talking about is re-embedding Marx within the
Classical discourse of Political Economy?
>>2182612>its weird that you care about the truthyes, the truth is scary to people who live in lies
>practicewhy do you want me to be a master? i have nothing to say about political practice, since im not young anymore. all i can do is spread the truth the best i can. better than living in the performance of a sublime deception. when the kids butt heads at marches, they must feel important, but ive always been a spectator in any case. i am one man, im unimportant in the mass of the people. you must remember that marx never gave any revolutionary advice either.
>>2182615thats what i attempted to theorise but its impossible since marx directly defies the classical tradition
>>2182616i'll watch this in a bit
>>2182619>thats what i attempted to theorise but its impossible since marx directly defies the classical traditionGo to leftychan (dot) net go to the /edu/ board find Eugene's thread and ask him whether he can.
He'll be able to, the question is whether it gets on his list of priority theorising.
>>2182631One of the more prominent bunkers along with nukechan.
Seems silly but this kind of prep work is why /leftypol/ is the one of the image board with continuity from its early days.
Talking of which /leftland/ seems to have been lost on 8moe and relying on Getchan is embarrassing we may need more bunkers soon.
The deep lore is that leftypol.org is also a bunker >>2182631>>2182632 (me)
You can think of Eugene's thread on leftychan.net as the paging service for Eugene.
>>2182627i dont need to ask anyone to make 1+1=3 since it cant be done.
>>2182616to summarise this video, cockshott applies a quasi-ricardian theory of value onto commodity prices and concludes that prices have a strong correlation to labour inputs (as opposed to labour costs), by "direct" and "indirect" labours (how convenient!). he concludes by declaring this a victory for marxist science since it empirically deduces a quantitative relation, tied into a greater project of "econophysics". the fatal flaw in all this is that in the first place, it presumes, as marx does, an objective value to prices (in the equivalence of value), which are not accounted for by supply and demand. the issue is that if prices = values, then you erase value into the identity of price, but if prices = supply/demand, they can be accounted for by exterior, rather than interior mechanisms, which offers a political critique of the market, rather than a deterministic view of crisis. to me, price is always variable, and therefore, able to be politically appropriated. so this video expressly fails to solve the transformation problem.
>>2182630if you bothered to read my original reply, i already account for all of the concerns of marxists through the lense of adam smith, who has never been seriously challenged (except by marginalists who attempt to reverse the water-diamond paradox, but fail). even marxists fail in understanding why they arent smithians themselves, and so create false categories like this one video which i responded to thoroughly:
>>2162537>>2162545so my "solution" is adam smith, put succinctly. not politically, necessarily - but economically, in understanding the basics (i do not accept marx's critique of classical economics). furthermore, i would recommend keynes, in responding to marxism's concrete claims of economic crisis. "overproduction" is another term for "underconsumption", and therefore, redistribution becomes the natural conclusion of markets (redistribution or barbarism), which at this stage, then also come under administrative management. so you can sum up my position as "bourgeois economics", but not "capitalist economics" per se, since smith and keynes themselves were nominally "anti-capitalist" (anti-monopoly in the market). there is a difference if you are cultured enough to appreciate it.
>>2182705because marx insists upon the separation. chapter 19 is all about how "labour" (concrete labour) is valueless and it is labour-power which possesses value. it is the deep semantics of marx's system that break its logic;
>"Labour is the substance, and the immanent measure of value, but has itself no value. In the expression “value of labour,” the idea of value is not only completely obliterated, but actually reversed. It is an expression as imaginary as the value of the earth. These imaginary expressions, arise, however, from the relations of production themselves. They are categories for the phenomenal forms of essential relations."<"the value of labour is only an irrational expression for the value of labour-power […] the phenomenal form, “value and price of labour,” or “wages,” as contrasted with the essential relation manifested therein, viz., the value and price of labour-power, the same difference holds that holds in respect to all phenomena and their hidden substratum."this opposition begins in chapter 1, between value and exchange-value (the value form).
>"exchange value, generally, is only the mode of expression, the phenomenal form, of something contained in it, yet distinguishable from it."further,
>"value can only manifest itself in the social relation of commodity to commodity. In fact we started from exchange value, or the exchange relation of commodities, in order to get at the value that lies hidden behind it."this becomes the same relation between value and price, and thus, surplus value and profits
however, if values can be mapped onto prices, then why presume a value independent of its price?
you cant measure values directly to marx; value only "manifests itself in the social relation of commodity to commodity", and as he further writes in chapter 19,
>"But what is the value of a commodity? The objective form of the social labour expended in its production. And how do we measure the quantity of this value? By the quantity of the labour contained in it. How then is the value, e.g., of a 12 hour working-day to be determined? By the 12 working-hours contained in a working day of 12 hours, which is an absurd tautology."so to marx, the contradiction of measuring value directly is a tautology (12 hours = 12 hours), while the contradiction of bourgeois economy is assigning a value to labour (concrete labour; use-value), rather than labour-power (value). thus as he concludes, the "value of labour" in "wages" is just the "value of labour-power", which to marx, expresses the "hidden substratum" below the realm of mere appearance.
>>2182716>however, if values can be mapped onto prices, then why presume a value independent of its price?because individual values cant be measured directly, but they can be calculated in aggregate. this is what makes generalized commodity production different then pre-capitalist economies. in the same way that one worker may be slower or one stronger but are paid the same wage. from the perspective of a capitalist they are a fixed cost and are the same. the only way to make meaningful sense of this is to consider all labor of a type or cost together as one. and we also dont consider the price of a single commodity at the point of sale. one day it might sell for twice as much and another half. what we would ideally measure is the price of all sales for all of a commodity over the lifetime of its production run, but we can compare monthy, yearly, or running averages and our data will become more accurate over time with less variation, and we can determine its asymptote and limits. marx is never claiming that he can or we should predict prices at the point of sale for individual products, he is describing a ratio. rather than thinking of value as a measure in units, it is a measure of rate. the point of the demonstration is about rational organization of the economy, and value as snlt governed by the anarchy of the market is irrational, it is an inefficient misappropriation of social labor that could be directed otherwise. when you compare the rate of change in wages relative to rate of change in costs of production or sales prices this makes sense because you compare averages over time. but if your asking to derive a particular sale price from a particular labor input we can find maybe a range but not predict exactly what it will be. its like demanding to know position and velocity without time.
>>2183413explain to me how you quantify value outside of price
>>2182725but you cant determine value outside of prices either; it becomes circular, unless you think of two prices for the commodity; its natural price (cost of production) and its market price (supply and demand). unfortunately, marx discards this framework and so loses the grounding for measuring the value of commodities. to marx, value is an unquantifiable abstraction until after the fact of exchange, hence:
>"To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange. Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value. [capital vol. 1, chapter 1]"so marx here is stating that value is not created in production, but both in production and exchange;
>"It is therefore impossible for capital to be produced by circulation, and it is equally impossible for it to originate apart from circulation. It must have its origin both in circulation and yet not in circulation. We have, therefore, got a double result. [capital vol. 1, chapter 5]"this is the fundamental frustration.
>>2182788i would just say that this "average" across society is a commodity's equilibrium price (including the commodity of labour). marx however disregards this postulation of the classical school,
>"The continual oscillations in prices, their rising and falling, compensate each other, and reduce themselves to an average price, which is their hidden regulator. It forms the guiding star of the merchant or the manufacturer in every undertaking that requires time […] average prices do not directly coincide with the values of commodities, as Adam Smith, Ricardo, and others believe. [ch. 5, footnote 24]" >If prices actually differ from values, we must, first of all, reduce the former to the latter, in other words, treat the difference as accidental in order that the phenomena may be observed in their purity, and our observations not interfered with by disturbing circumstances that have nothing to do with the process in question. We know, moreover, that this reduction is no mere scientific process[…] He knows that when a long period of time is taken, commodities are sold neither over nor under, but at their average price. If therefore he thought about the matter at all, he would formulate the problem of the formation of capital as follows: How can we account for the origin of capital on the supposition that prices are regulated by the average price, i. e., ultimately by the value of the commodities? I say “ultimately,” because[the part you left out]
>It is therefore impossible for capital to be produced by circulation, and it is equally impossible for it to originate apart from circulation. It must have its origin both in circulation and yet not in circulation.
>We have, therefore, got a double result.
>The conversion of money into capital has to be explained on the basis of the laws that regulate the exchange of commodities, in such a way that the starting-point is the exchange of equivalents. [24] Our friend, Moneybags, who as yet is only an embryo capitalist, must buy his commodities at their value, must sell them at their value, and yet at the end of the process must withdraw more value from circulation than he threw into it at starting.
oh anon I think i have found a contradiction! what could it possibly mean?!
>>2183722so you just avoid the question?
nothing new.
>>2183725afraid to tag me?
>>2183728educated person vs twitter trolls
the only issue is that marx was originally incorrect about money and so this critique is just internal to marxism
>>2183728Did you find the twitter of the guy who derailed this entire thread for several hundred posts? Very impressive.
>>2182672>i already account for all of the concerns of marxists through the lense of adam smith, who has never been seriously challengedi swear the CIA is funding you guys, making you in a lab. you manage to find the most obscure marxist boards and just derail derail derail, deflect deflect deflect, repeat the same handful of very convenient lies. the goal is to get people off the path to proletarian revolution at all costs. Here's 3 hours of Marx's commentaries on Smith from Theories of Surplus Value Chapter 3. Get reading. Also of worth is the section from his chapter on the physiocrats where he demonstrates that Smith sometimes sides with the physiocrats, and sometimes tries to be free of them, and ends up contradicting himself as a result.
>memewhere do you even find memes like this? The Mises institute?
>>2183744>derailby discussing political economy? lol
>deflectwhat single thing have i deflected?
>repeat the same handful of very convenient liestell me one lie ive told.
>where do you even find memes like this?it was the only transformation problem meme i could find on google
>>2183745and tell me what money is again, marxist? is it not the crystalisation of human labour? and do you even know what capital is? explain M-C-M' to me, why dont you?
>>2183754>cant answer questions so calls other person dumbdid someone say dunning-kruger?
(dont answer that literally, anon).
>>2167118> unread marxists often foolishly assert otherwise; that man is actually more productive than machines, or that machines are just derivative of man's own labour, yet man himself is not the product of his own labour, and so its circular nonsensehumans are literally the product of abstract human labor. firstly the pregnancy and childbirth, years and years of being raised, taught how to do things, learning how to do things, etc.
How can you possibly say this? Were you raised by wolves?
The specific process of this matter can be simplified as follows: we borrow US dollars from Saudi Arabia and then “give” them to a third country. The third country repays the US debt and gives us resources. We give Saudi Arabia high-tech products. The US dollars from the third world are accelerated to flow back to the United States, and the US dollar inflation, in turn, accelerates Saudi Arabia’s “borrowing” of US dollars… forming a perfect cycle. Saudi Arabia sells dollars, we get resources, third world countries pay back U.S. debts, Saudi Arabia gets high-tech products, and the United States “gets” dollars… It’s a win-win situation for all parties, and the whole world wins.
We have turned the U.S. dollar into an “underlying asset” rather than an actual currency. Today, we trade with many countries sanctioned by the United States in this way - give me $10 million of oil, and then give you $10 million of industrial products. The U.S. dollar is just a pricing tool, and it seems as if it is involved but not involved.
To eliminate “dollar hegemony”, it is not necessary to eliminate the US dollar. We can also make the US dollar an unnecessary unit of account.
https://indi.ca/how-china-starts-printing-usd/>>2183768give me a single thing ive not answered. a very easy question that you can never answer yourself. here's a hint: stop accusing people of things you have no proof for
i use sources all the time, why not you? 😉
>>2183776and what determines this average price? the cost of production - easy, right? marx disagrees. thats my very basic point.
>>2183780right, so you need money to sustain the chain of production and consumption, not just "labour". without money, there is no capital. very basic stuff.
>>2184007well its all very simple. we agree that machines are more productive than man (which is why they outcompete men in the first place). so then, if we figuratively, "paid" the machine a wage, we exploit its labour, no? and if not, what makes human labour special? to me, it isnt special. only human *consumption* is special - thus, capital appropriates the labour of men into machines, but cannot appropriate its ability to exchange commodities.
>>2184574>humans are literally the product of abstract human labor. and how do you measure this abstract labour?
>>2183744okay so i read chapter 3 of theories of surplus value with its 11 sections, and here's my commentary:
marx begins by seeing smith's positive development from the physiocrats, and his *historical* conception of wage-labour, as being a force in confrontation with capital and landed property - which to smith *and* marx make up the 3 "classes" (workers, capitalists and landlords/leaseholders) which produce the 3 revenues of society; wages, profits and rents - marx in capital vol. 3 primarily posits the formula:
>V = c + v + sto give expression to the value of commodities, which can otherwise be extrapolated as:
>Value = constant capital + variable capital + surpluswithin this basic conception, marx seems to be a smithian (as we will see later on), yet marx also holds in his later work, capital vol. 1, that "value" exists as "human labour in the abstract" or "labour power", which is only expressed in prices but is ultimately independent from price - this makes it an unquantifiable entity, which is why i prefer smith's system of "natural price" to determine costs of production, since it is an actually-measurable quantity.
further on, he criticises smith's confusion between materialised labour, and "living labour" (expressed in wages) as determining the value of commodities.
>"It can be seen that in all these passages Adam Smith confuses the labour of other people with the produce of this labour."marx in capital vol. 1 also sees that smith has a "fixed" notion of value, which, if we take "labour power" into account, changes in every advancement in technology - so to marx, value changes all the time, but the quantity of living labour paid to the worker may remain a fixed quantity - like how j.s. mill remarks upon the fact that "labour saving devices" have never saved anyone labour. marx's meaning then is to bring distinction between the intensity and duration of labour, which is later manifested as the difference between absolute and relative surplus value. marx's basic criticism here then would be that smith doesnt grasp the difference between the personal and social product of labour since in the wage, the same product is returned to him, or as marx writes,
>"Here value is made the measuring rod and the basis for the explanation of value—so we have a vicious circle. [theories of surplus value, chapter 3, section 1]"yet, marx sees that smith's analysis is still correct in determining surplus-value…
>"without even being aware of it" in section 2, marx makes this point,
>"Adam Smith even more explicitly derives profit from the labour performed by the workman over and above the quantity of labour with which he pays for his wages, that is to say, replaces it by an equivalent. Thereby he has recognised the true origin of surplus-value."to put it more simply; to smith, wages and profits are both sorted out as a division between the total product; thus, profits (and rents) count only as a "deduction" from the wages of the labourer, hence smith's comments in wealth of nations about profits being highest in the poorest countries, since they exist in proportion (just like use and exchange value in the water-diamond paradox). so what are profits? unpaid wages. or as marx says,
>"Profit is consequently nothing but a deduction from the value which the workmen have added to the material of labour"any problem here, marxists?
marx then sees how smith undoes any apologetics for profits based in labour,
>"And he refutes this false view of the labour of superintendence"moving onto rent, he quotes smith,
>"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce"marx's silly criticisms continue here,
>"Nevertheless, he does not distinguish surplus-value as such as a category on its own, distinct from the specific forms it assumes in profit and rent."this again is marx's attempt to ground value in labour-time rather than price.
this obsession with appearance and essence is in fact, marx's general "critique of political economy".
in section 3, marx sums up the position,
>"For the Physiocrats, therefore, surplus-value appears only in the form of rent of land. For Adam Smith, rent, profit and interest are only different forms of surplus-value."and concludes with what he seeks to further criticise, namely,
>"Adam Smith’s confusion of surplus-value with profit"then,
>"his views on productive labour"then,
>"how he makes rent and profit sources of value"and finally,"
>"his false analysis of the “natural price” of commodities"there are 43 pages left, so get ready!
section 4 begins with marx discussing smith's confrontation with the law of value and the accumulation of capital, for which he says,
>"We shall see later how what was a stroke of genius with Adam Smith becomes reactionary with Malthus as against Ricardo’s standpoint."smith's contemplation to marx is not enough however and so he sees that he remains ultimately inconsistent (but this is just the inconsistency of the market itself).
marx revises smith by hodgskin,
>"Natural price thus increased to the labourer is social price … we must always attend to the difference between natural and social price" marx critiques smith in section 5 by the insinuation that smith imagines the interest of capital forwarded by capitalist stock "produce" its final result,
>"Here profit is no longer explained by the nature of surplus-value, but by the “interest” of the capitalist. Which is downright silly."he continues his explanation,
>"Adam Smith does not sense that, by thus directly confusing surplus-value with profit and profit with surplus-value, he is upsetting the law of the origin of surplus-value which he has just established"and says further,
>"From surplus-value in its general form we come straight to a general rate of profit, which has nothing directly to do with it."marx's concise criticism come from an example smith uses, where at the point that profits are achieved by stock in a company, and with rising wages, consequently, the view of profits as exploited labour ceases to be an explanation - but to me this is very uncharitable, for smith already remarks upon this difference,
>"They” (the profits of stock) “are, however, altogether different” (from wages), “are regulated by quite different principles, and bear no proportion to the quantity, the hardship, or the ingenuity of this supposed labour of inspection and direction."marx's criticism can oncemore be summed up here,
>"he ought not to treat general abstract form as directly identical with any of its particular forms."this is also marx's tirade in the capital trilogy, which imo, does not advance political economy, but only regresses it (hence you have people worshipping marx without even reading him).
so here again, marx's criticism is a nitpick, not a serious deconstruction.
in section 6, marx accuses smith of equating "revenue" with "exchangeable value", and his criticism bears relation to the idea that since all "value" is based in labour, capital and land can only "exchange" a value they have appropriated. this you might say, is marx's distinction between value and price - but this is also an unsolved issue in his work, and so is an empty criticism of itself. for example, marx calls the price of land "imaginary"; yet it appears as real - what then is the difference? smith has a simple solution however; if a commodity has *two* prices (a natural and market price) then it can account for these disturbances likewise.
marx goes on further,
>"It is the labour and not the wages of the labourer that creates value […] His wages can therefore rise or fall without this affecting the value of the commodity produced by him"this i would dispute, even on marxian grounds. the wage appears as the value of labour, and without it, there is no equivalence. marx here becomes vulgar in his theories in an attempt to criticise smith, not realising that he undoes himself.
in section 7 marx is just generally complaining about smith's "cost-price" theory of value, and sees it in contradiction with other statements he makes about the determination of surplus-value. his issue is that it becomes tautological, but to me, it is hardly an issue, since it solves itself. most unread marxists even appropriate smith's "equilibrium" theory without knowing that marx disagrees with it.
in section 8, marx criticises smith's analysis of national revenue, and its partition into "gross revenue" and "neat revenue". his criticism is that his analysis is incomplete, basically, and i agree. the contention is in allocating the means into a "fourth" constituent revenue which accounts for the reproduction of fixed capital (and so is apart from wages, profits and rents). this could be called the "capital fund", and i would say can simply be transferred into a certain sum of profits. section 9 continues, but sees how jean-baptiste say, as vulgariser of smith reproduces the same problems.
section 10 goes through a 3-fold argument:
> (a) Impossibility of the Replacement of the Constant Capital of the Producers of Consumption Goods through Exchange between These Producers> (b) Impossibility of Replacing the Whole Constant Capital of society by Means of Exchange between the Producers of Articles of Consumption and the Producers of Means of Production> (c) Exchange of Capital for Capital between the Producers of Means of Production. Annual Product of Labour and the Product of Labour Newly Added Annuallyat the end of this sequence, he concludes,
>"The revenue, which consists only of added labour, is able to pay for this product, which consists partly of added and partly of preexisting labour; that is to say, the labour added in these products can pay not only for itself but also for the pre-existing labour, because another part of the product—which also consists of labour added and pre-existing labour—replaces only preexisting labour, only constant capital."so his grand criticism of smith is that in generalising surplus value into profits and rents, he misses the surplus labour which constitutes the "fourth" revenue.
section 11 is just notes.
to summarise, marx's criticism is as he puts it in capital vol. 1, and in particular, chapter 19;
>"Classical Political Economy nearly touches the true relation of things, without, however, consciously formulating it. This it cannot, so long as it sticks in its bourgeois skin."i could agree, except that marx nowhere in his work reliably offers a cure to bourgeois analysis. this is why i ask, "how do we derive prices from labour-power alone?" yet receive no answer. if prices =/= values, yet prices measurably exist, we must stick with prices in order to be empirical. thats it. sure, maybe this causes analysis to be incomplete, but at least its comprehensive.
hopefully you appreciate this post & dont act like a dickhead, like everyone else 🙂
>>2184872>sees it in contradiction with other statements he makes about the determination of surplus-value. his issue is that it becomes tautological, but to me, it is hardly an issue, since it solves itself.but when you discover a contradiction in marx it suddenly blows up his whole theory!
>i could agree, except that marx nowhere in his work reliably offers a cure to bourgeois analysishow about proletarian practice? dumbass
>>2185026give me ONE single example
quote it for me. link it. or just restate it.
ive responded to everything by quoting marx directly, which shows good faith and intellectual honesty. you are just crashing out like a toddler because i criticised marx on his own terms. get a grip.
>miseswhat does he have to do with anything?
>smithyou mean the founder of modern economics?
i wish more people would talk about him - also, unless you didnt notice, thus thread is specifically about "political economy", and the other thread is specifically about marx's capital, yet people get triggered that i quote the book. i have done everything right and no one has ever given me a proper form of criticism lol. stop being mad and be humble.
>>2185030a tautology is not a contradiction, its just circular reasoning - but everything also becomes a tautology due to the law of identity in formal logic, or A=A.
the contradictions of marx are deeper than a mere stylistic error - it is in the very application of his theory to concrete ends. thats why i ask, "how do you determine prices from labour-power?" and still no one answers.
>how about proletarian practice?explain to me how "proletarian practice" solves the issues of bourgeois economics basing analysis in prices
>>2185050tell me how they differ, and how that's revelant to smith apparently having a contradiction in his formulation of value
>>2185053hahaha
so in the end, you finally admit that you cant give me a single example of me lying, yet accuse me anyway…
so at least everybody knows youre wrong. i hope youre finished with that last post - and if not, why not spend a bit more time looking for my endless "lies" 🤣
>>2185061>you cant give me a single example of me lyingthe question you asked was about refutations you didn't reply to
heres one i happened to come across with a series of direct questions you failed to answer
>>2121379the implication of course is that your object of study is in fact different from marx's and you are not interested in the emancipation of the working class, hence your motivated reasoning for debunking ltv
what "marx is wrong, value is fake, only market prices are real, retvrn to adam smith" schizo fails to acknowledge is this: whether or not "value" is real, the capitalist must pay the worker less money than the work performed by the worker generates for the capitalist. It the capitalist does not do this, the capitalist will not make any money. This is the heart of exploitation. It is a very simple matter. Exploitation and alienation are why the working class find Marx relevant compared with Smith, who, for all his diatribes against landlords, saw surplus value as the capitalist's wage for his managerial form of labor. But if we were to take this argument at face value (pun intended), this means people like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, who have several hundred dollars for every second they've been alive would be performing "managerial labor" worth hundreds of thousands of times the actual productive labor that contributes to commodity production. This is obviously incorrect. They merely appropriate that money because society is structured in a certain way.
>>2185754marx disagrees:
>"average prices do not directly coincide with the values of commodities, as Adam Smith, Ricardo, and others believe. [capital vol. 1, footnote 24]"take it up with karl himself.
>>2185749another person too afraid to tag me
>Smith, who, for all his diatribes against landlords, saw surplus value as the capitalist's wage for his managerial form of labornot at all. you are literally making things up. to smith, profits always represented a deduction from wages, not the compensation of the capitalist's own wage. thats why he saw how profits are highest in the poorest countries, since the capitalist is stealing the value of his workers. this is exemplified early on by the water-diamond paradox, and his arguments against mercantilists; that money (value in exchange) is the opposite of wealth (value in use).
lying illiterate retard.
>>2186236the quote: capital vol. 1, chapter 5, footnote 24*
also read chapter 19 to see his general criticism of the classical school. here is its conclusive note:
>"Classical Political Economy nearly touches the true relation of things, without, however, consciously formulating it. This it cannot, so long as it sticks in its bourgeois skin."by this, he means mistaking appearance for essence (prices for values), yet marx fails to reverse engineer the process, of value back to price, therefore we have the transformation problem.
>>2186254>>2186254>there is no transformation problemsolve it for me then. how do we determine prices from labour-power?
>aggregate prices are equal to aggregate valuesread the quote one more time;
>"average prices do not directly coincide with the values of commodities, as Adam Smith, Ricardo, and others believe. [capital vol. 1, footnote 24]">Money is a representation of valueto marx it is a "measure of value", not a mere symbol
>"The fact that money can, in certain functions, be replaced by mere symbols of itself, gave rise to that other mistaken notion, that it is itself a mere symbol. [capital vol. 1, chapter 2]">Even if individual prices deviate from their values, the total of all values in a market are equal to the total money supplynot at all. there are many prices in a market which exceed the money supply. this is basic keynesian understanding.
>This is pretty obvious if you actually understand Marx's analysis of moneyexplain it to me since i apparently misunderstand
>>2186258Marx’s goal in Capital was to uncover the laws of motion of capitalism as a whole, not to explain individual market prices. He abstracted away from surface-level phenomena (e.g., supply/demand fluctuations, competition) to analyze the essence of capitalism. Marx’s theory is a macro-foundational analysis of capitalism, not a microeconomic price theory. Marx prioritized explaining capitalism’s systemic exploitation over describing price formation in individual markets. His aggregate equalities are a theoretical tool to show that despite surface-level deviations, capitalism’s total value and profit derive from labor, that exploitation is not a local anomaly but a structural necessity of the system. Marx was not trying to calculate exact prices but to show that surplus value is the sole source of profit and that Capitalism’s surface-level phenomena (prices, profits) are rooted in class relations and labor exploitation. Marx argued that at the system-wide level, two key equalities hold:
Total price of all commodities = Total labor value of all commodities.
Total profit = Total surplus value (i.e., the unpaid labor extracted from workers).
These equalities reflect the idea that labor is the sole source of value in capitalism. While individual prices may deviate from values, the total value produced by labor cannot disappear; it is merely redistributed through competition. Marx’s equalities hold at the macro level because capitalism operates as a closed system: value and surplus value are conserved, even as competition redistributes them. Individual deviations reflect the tension between labor values and profit-rate equalization, but they balance out across the economy, preserving Marx’s foundational claims about exploitation and value. Surplus value is reallocated to equalize profit rates. Capital-intensive sectors "gain" profit from labor-intensive sectors, but the total remains unchanged. Price deviations redistribute existing value but do not create or destroy it.
>>2185749You could have a capitalism in aggregate where the worker is "paid more" than the profit the capitalist makes, and the capitalists vote themselves free money to offset this and maintain their position and security. That's basically what happened in recent history, and it was built in to how the Bank of England and banks like it actually work. All of the money is premised on debt, rather than imagining a vast hoard of gold or some valuable things that the rich hold like Scrooge McDuck's money bin. There is nowhere near enough gold or "hard assets" in the world to account for the nominal wealth that is claimed and borrowed against. But, the rich have this state that extends an infinite credit line, which they then pay out as the nominal "money".
How this works is that the leading capitalists simply take by decree wealth from the world or other people, and this open plunder is legitimized. This is what exploitation in the extreme really means, rather than an abstract thing. There is a class of people whose "wealth" and social standing is absolutely nil, and whose only motivation is fear of torture. These people and all of their product is effectively invisibilized and not part of the "capitalist system" as such. They may receive nominal money, but this is always with the understanding that money and agency in the hands of this underclass is "not real money" and can be freely confiscated at any time, which it is. That's what civil asset forfeiture entails explicitly, so it's codified in the present law. You don't get there unless you've already declared the underclass to be a population open to unlimited predation. With this, the favored grades of labor can be paid "more than they're worth", since the money doesn't correspond directly to any wealth or capital in that sense. The machinery that is capital is simply commandeered or constructed at the demand of the ruling class, and the natural wealth of the Earth in situ is claimed presumptively by the monopolist.
Your mistake is assuming the workers as a class are the only source of wealth or value, and that all workers are an imagined proletarian subject that mysteriously possesses full liberal rights and the same wants and assumptions as members of the class they're "supposed" to be in. That hasn't operated for a long time. We live in a caste society with a very large underclass that has no rights, not even a right to basic security. You don't know what you've lost until it is your turn.
>>2186264because thats the fucking transformation problem, idiot. the transformation of labour values into prices so as to determine the rate of exploitation.
>>2186265>These equalities reflect the idea that labor is the sole source of value in capitalism.you do realise that marx didnt invent the ltv, right?
>>2186273It's not even that, since your money isn't "your money" any more, and caste-centered lockouts are effectively permanent. Also, it is expected you won't be able to use all of the nominal "money" that you should receive. The taxes you pay don't directly fund anything, as if the state consumes immediately. Even you yourself do not consume immediately, hand to mouth. All that is required of the money is that it sort of works as a psychological mechanism and there are no extreme shortages of goods. By now, inventory management at any store is capable of predicting their typical sales in a week, and the habits of consumers are well ingrained and subsidized by the government, which itself takes on debt. Private consumers take on debt and pay for their life with credit that they know they can never repay.
Production of everything is controlled pretty tightly. If there were critical shortages in production of a necessary good like food, there would be forced conscription to fill them. They have used prisoners as slave labor for this purpose, and the underclass are tied in conditions that obligate them to become slaves at a moment's notice. But, this expedient usually is not needed, because everyone is desperate enough to do anything for a few bucks, if their bodies have not been depleted yet. If you go to a farm you can find some really fucked up people who are basically trapped there. If you're an employer, you love this. You don't want free employees that can quit or have other obligations. You want a knife at their throat in order to really grind them down, because there are legions of unemployed who can fill a gap if one of the slaves drops dead.
Basically, many here are making the mistake of thinking there is only "imminent allocation", when money is primarily a planning tool. Someone goes to the market once a week or once a week to plan what they will need, rather than the money immediately being transmuted into the desired goods.
>>2186278im not talking about individual prices, im talking about price in general. the economy is constructed from prices, yet to marxists, these prices are produced by labour-power - how then does labour-power construct average prices from itself?
my answer is simple - average prices circulate around the cost of production, but to marx this is false since it is tautological, for it takes price to be the measure of price (like how to marx, value cannot be its own measure), and thus the difference between value and price is opened up by marx, but it is an irresolvable void - why? because there are only prices - but two prices; the "natural" and "market" price of commodities. there is no abstract labour, but only concrete labour. marx thoroughly disagrees;
>"In the expression “value of labour,” the idea of value is not only completely obliterated, but actually reversed. It is an expression as imaginary as the value of the earth [capital vol. 1, ch. 19]" >>2186287to smith, there are 3 revenues: wages, profits and rent
these correspond to: workers, capitalists and landlords
which constitute: labour, capital and landed property
smith says decisively that when a commodity is sold, it is sold at its value, however, this value is shared between 3 classes which all contribute to the cost of the commodity (there are 3 costs which contribute to the price of a commodity). thus, the cost of production is the sum of the prices of the production, but this price is variable - most especially where it concerns rents (including taxes). thus, if we got rid of rents, commodities would be cheaper. a basic point, which the right never take further.
after rent however we only have 2 revenues; wages and profits. where do profits come from then? well, the capitalist supplies capital (means of production) and the worker provides labour - so presumably, profit arises as a reimbursement from the original costs of capital, yet profits always appear larger than an original investment. so then we are only left with labour and its product. profit then is both, a return on the original investment, and a deduction of wages. thus, you can formulate profits as potential wages which have been transferred into capital. put most simply, profits are unpaid wages.
now, marx seems fond of this formula as he puts it;
>V = c + v + s>Value = constant capital + variable capital + surplusthis has its smithian interpretation of course:
>(Natural) Price = capital + labour + rentsand marx in capital vol. 3 also agrees with the determination of the 3 revenues applying to the 3 classes of worker, capitalist and landlord. what then is the discrepancy? it is only marx's insistence that to base value on prices is a tautology.
as i wrote here:
>>2184872marx in chapter 3 of "theories of surplus value" has very little issue with smith and even says that he correctly identifies the source of "surplus value"; its just that smith does not abstract the essence of value enough to account for its general social existence. it is a metaphysical dispute, put most succinctly. marx presupposes the existence of labour values before prices, but smith as an empiricist just measures price. thus as marx says,
>"Classical Political Economy nearly touches the true relation of things, without, however, consciously formulating it. This it cannot, so long as it sticks in its bourgeois skin. [capital vol. 1, chapter 19]"and as i still testify - economically, smith has never been seriously contested, only ignored (it should be noted that, by far, the biggest critics of smith are the austrian school).
>>2186334>before generalised commodity productionsmith says "labour was the first price", then goes on to conjecture about barter - same as marx's discourse on the "elementary value form". there is no disagreement in this regard - marx's critique is specifically about value under capitalism, and that is also smith's analysis. marx imagines that "value" stands as something in-itself, and is then dispersed into use-value and exchange-value in the commodity (remember, to marx, value only exists in systems of commodity production). smith says contrarily that there are two forms of value; value in use and value in exchange - but what about "value" as such? it is immaterial, unless it assumes a social form. this is smith's empiricism which marx criticises; marx wants value to exist apart from wages, and for surplus value to exist apart from profits/rents. okay, so tell us how to measure it - but we cant, so it is just an abstraction. that is the marxist fallacy. working with prices is superior.
>>2186387>natural/equilibrium price may as well be value in most casestake. it. up. with. marx.
>so you saying that there's "two prices" is different from price vs value how?because natural prices are still prices. the wage is still a price. marx also sees how labour-power as a commodity must be sold on the market for its equivalent value.
>>2187292>take. it. up. with. marx.you say value doesn't exist, only price does, but you're OK with equilibrium price, which is essentially price of production before supply and demand kick in, which is essentially SNLT, which is essentially value, to Marx. So you don't think value exists yet you admit to a cost of production which aligns with what is essentially value, for Marx, before supply, demand, monopoly, and other post-production factors influence the price. You're splitting hairs if you think value doesn't exist but natural/equilibrium price does. What for you is the difference?
>>2187360the point remains the same, that both imagine labour to conduct the first measure of value in commodities.
>>2187363>you say value doesn't existi never said that. there are two forms of value - value in use and value in exchange, but there is no "human labour in the abstract" which can be measured in itself.
>equilibrium price, which is essentially price of production before supply and demand kick in, which is essentially SNLT, which is essentially value, to Marxsaying "essentially" doesnt close the gap that marx establishes.
>You're splitting hairs if you think value doesn't exist but natural/equilibrium price doesim not the one splitting hairs; marx is. again, just read chapter 19 of capital vol. 1. its a short chapter.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch19.htm>What for you is the difference?that i believe (concrete) labour is valuable, while marx believes only (abstract) labour-power is valuable.
>>2185754>natural price = equilibrium price = price without the influence of market factors like supply, demand, monopoly = value = socially necessary labor time.Well that's the big question. Does equilibrium price correspond to value/SNLT?
>>2186236>marx disagreesYes.
When Marx published volume I of Capital, he thought he would be done with volumes II and III quickly after it. The Marx quote by
>>2186236 is a reference to the model Marx wanted to show in Capital III and he already had the model written down back then in his notes. Marx believed in prices oscillating around those amounts that would equalize the profit rates, meaning in sectors of the economy with
high organic composition of capital (= a lot of dead labor in machinery relative to living labor working with it) the equilibrium prices would be above value.
Paul Cockshott says that empirically the CIII model of prices is not more reliable than just using labor time for predicting prices.
>>2186258>read the quote one more timeThe quote is not about aggregate values and aggregate prices. By average price it means a commodity's price averaged over time, so supply-demand fluctuations cancel out. The quote does not say anything against price and value aggregates being equal.
>>2187437>Does equilibrium price correspond to value/SNLT?you would have to measure SNLT first.
>the equilibrium prices would be above valueyou can postulate that, but then how do you measure value as separate from equilibrium price?
>Paul Cockshott says that empirically the CIII model of prices is not more reliable than just using labor time for predicting prices.well the issue is precisely what marx says; you cant measure value by labour-time alone, but only by SNLT in accordance with average production - this is already factored into the wage of the employer however. if you fall behind the average expectation you are replaced. markets tend toward cheapening goods for this reason.
>The quote does NOT say anything against price and value aggregates being equal.so what does this sentence mean to you?
>"average prices do not directly coincide with the values of commodities, as Adam Smith, Ricardo, and others believe." >>2187437 (me)
>>2187446>measure SNLTThe trick is scale. Concrete labor time of a particular person at a particular moment is not the same as SNLT (the person might be particularly incompetent or might have a bad day or might be an OK worker but forced to work with outdated tools etc. or the opposite: a performance that is not representative because it is too good). But you get SNLT if you measure many concrete acts of work and average over that.
>so what does this sentence mean to you?>>"average prices do not directly coincide with the values of commodities, as Adam Smith, Ricardo, and others believe."I said: By average price it means a commodity's price averaged over time, so supply-demand fluctuations cancel out.
>>2187463>Concrete labor time of a particular person at a particular moment is not the same as SNLT [.] But you get SNLT if you measure many concrete acts of work and average over that.to marx, there is an inverse relationship between the duration and intensity of labour (its time and its product; or abstract and concrete labour);
>"The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it. [capital vol. 1, ch. 1]"for example, when the working day is lowered, marx records workers saying how the workload is more, but less time - this to marx lowers the value of commodities since it lowers SNLT without lowering the output. so SNLT does not record the ends of production, but its means, yet means and ends relate, and this is the difficulty.
if we read this from capital vol. 1, chapter 1,
>"The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth […] and consequently fell to one-half its former value."and this,
>"If we could succeed at a small expenditure of labour, in converting carbon into diamonds, their value might fall below that of bricks."my meaning in quoting these is to see how SNLT is presupposed in the final product, yet SNLT has no objective existence apart from the product, and so it becomes the same issue of value and price. if we remember that to marx value only exists in commodity exchange, then the category of SNLT can be resolved by the wage - which marx identifies with the equivalent value of labour-power, but that is the furthest i am able to abstract this object of labour. basically, SNLT can only be measured by the wage, and the wage is primarily a price, so we just return to the same circularity.
>By average price it means a commodity's price averaged over time, so supply-demand fluctuations cancel out.yeah thats also what i mean. marx isnt accusing smith of conflating market prices with average prices. yet marx is also saying that average prices =/= the value of commodities. the most clear idea of what constitutes value to marx is the wage, but is the wage itself an objective price for labour-power? and this is the further difficulty of marxists; can you be paid "more" than the value of SNLT?
>>2187292>this is smith's empiricism which marx criticisesyeah if you want to understand whats going on here you should study dialectics and lenins critique of empiricism. you know like people have been telling you for months
>just an abstractionlol
>>2187389>here is no "human labour in the abstract" which can be measured in itselfin aggregate, as an average, or individually? and why do you think that matters ?
>>2187446>how do you measure value as separate from equilibrium price?why should you? why do you want to? what is the point?
>marx says; you cant measure value by labour-time alone, but only by SNLT in accordance with average productionthats the same thing, why do you want to measure it alone?
are you even aware that marx says the opposite of what you are claiming elsewhere? why do you think he says one thing in one place and something else in another? do you think he is stupid?
>>2187511>you should study dialectics and lenins critique of empiricismwhy dont you explain it to me and why it matters?
>and why do you think that matters ?because to marx, value is "human labour in the abstract"; so-called abstract labour, or labour-power (the labour-time socially necessary for production).
>what is the point?to be able to determine value
>thats the same thing, why do you want to measure it alone?its not the same thing. labour-time can be lengthened according from unskilled labour, and so isnt SNLT.
>are you even aware that marx says the opposite of what you are claiming elsewhere?explain
>do you think he is stupid?marx? no. but i think you are.
>>2187512>you think the limit of production is money, and not labor.[…]
<this may be true under capitalismoh, im glad you agree haha 😅
>but its not a natural law of the physical constraints of the universewhere did i ever claim this to be the case? lol.
>if you understood that you wouldn't think he is "contradicting" himself when he says the same thing is both true and false.but that is the very definition of contradiction…
>>2187525>why dont you explain it to me and why it matters?this actually gets back to the Capital thread and why my original response to if people should read Capital was no. there are many things from Marx that you should read before Capital because just relying on it alone will lead you into mistakes and not understanding what he is talking about.
but its already been explained to you multiple times why dialectics is important and how it relates and instead of actually doing the reading you just started randomly saying dialectical to posture as if you knew
>its not the same thing. labour-time can be lengthened according from unskilled labour, and so isnt SNLT.which is why marx talks about averages and doesn't claim to be trying to derive individual prices at the point of sale
>where did i ever claim this to be the case? lol.when you said that the existence of fiat means tendency of the rate of profit to fall can be overcome by paying machines a wage and doing UBI and that it is not necessary to transition away from private ownership for profit. this would mean that the limit of production being money is not limited to capitalism but is some kind of transhistorical natural law. because if labor is actually the limit of production, then paying machines a wage would not be able to keep a productive economy running. if money is the limit of production then you can inject money into the economy and run forever.
and thats why people have been repeatedly trying to get you to understand the commodity fetish, because you seem to actually believe money has some kind of magical powers.
>>2187550>my original response to if people should read Capital was noat least youre a man who takes your own advice 🤣
>there are many things from Marx that you should read before Capital because just relying on it alone will lead you into mistakes and not understanding what he is talking about. what are those things that people should read?
>but its already been explained to you multiple times why dialectics is important and how it relatesrelates to what? you havent explained anything.
>instead of actually doing the readingthe reading of what?
>which is why marx talks about averagesuh, yeah, thanks for repeating my point
>if money is the limit of production then you can inject money into the economy and run forever. only as far as this money represents labour being consumed. production and consumption become the same process. however, capital has its internal limits, which must be reckoned with. marx identifies the crises of overproduction as its primary contradiction, but that isnt the only one.
>understand the commodity fetishwhy dont you explain it to me?
>you seem to actually believe money has some kind of magical powershow?
>>2187554>what are those things that people should read?start at the beginning of the other thread and read it.
>why dont you explain it to me?i already have at least three times.
before i thought you were just autistic and being too literal but i think the actual problem is your empiricist tendency and resulting devotion to smith. i think what the kids are calling it these days is stuck in the "anglo box". like a huge part of marx's critique, not of capital but of philosophy, is that empiricism is ahistorical(undialectical), for the empiricist what you see is what you get, and there is no historical social determination of concepts, things just are as they appear. and pretty much this entire argument across three major threads i can think of in as many months has been you insisting that things are as they appear and a whole bunch of people pointing out that isn't true, and then you quoting Marx's description of how things appear while ignoring the critique that follows directly after it.
>>2187559>start at the beginning of the other thread and read it. so people should read a leftypol thread before reading marx's actual work…?
>the actual problem is your empiricist tendencyempiricism matters when youre dealing in scientific affairs
>like a huge part of marx's critique, not of capital but of philosophy, is that empiricism is ahistoricalbut marx in theories of surplus value chapter 3 says that smith is correctly oriented historically and correctly identifies the source of "surplus value". smith's economic analysis is correct, marx just has an issue with smith's concepts which leave him to a state incompleteness, but not incorrectness.
>>2187565>so people should read a leftypol thread before reading marx's actual work…?People should read threads they post in instead of selectively responding in an effort to derail discussion. If you actually read that thread you would know there are lists of things from Marx that people have suggested to read before reading Capital.
>marx just has an issue with smith's conceptsand why do you think that might be lmao.
why are you going back to 'theories of surplus value chapter 3' when im not talking about surplus value or capital at all? why are you trying to shift the conversation away from the actual dispute and back into minutia?
>>2187568>there are lists of things from Marx that people have suggested to read before reading Capital. give me some examples
>and why do you think that might bebecause marx is confused
>why are you going back to 'theories of surplus value chapter 3'because you were critiquing empiricism as "ahistorical" in relation to smith, but marx agrees with smith's historical approach (as shown in theories of surplus value chapter 3), thus the critique of empiricism generally bears no relation to smith's economic analysis, but only his conception.
>why are you trying to shift the conversation away from the actual dispute and back into minutia?i am the one solidly on-topic.
>>2187573>because you were critiquing empiricism as "ahistorical" in relation to smithno im saying that empiricism in general is ahistorical. specifically im saying that empiricism generally and especially british empiricism, that of smith, hume, locke is idealist, vulgar and reductionist, which is why i recommended lenins critique, as it is the most direct. poverty of philosophy is also a good one. iirc chapter 2 even talks about why shifting money around like you suggest doesn't work.
>but only his conception.thats the entire point lol
>>2187577>no im saying that empiricism in general is ahistoricalas opposed to what? what is your epistemology?
>specifically im saying that empiricism generally and especially british empiricism, that of smith, hume, locke is idealist, vulgar and reductionist<which is why i recommended lenins critique, as it is the most directand what exactly is this critique?
>thats the entire pointright, so smith deals in facts and figures while marx deals in flowery language. got it.
also, like always, you never actually answered any of my questions, but do keep going.
>>2187586>so smith deals in facts and figures while marx deals in flowery language. got it.so you pretend to understand marx's dialectic but also think its just flowery language. got it.
>you never actually answered any of my questionsim not going to do your homework for you
>>2187588>so you pretend to understand marx's dialectic but also think its just flowery language. got it.wait…
do you actually think marx is a scientist?
>im not going to do your homework for youits because you know nothing. you make claims then never, ever back them up. you dont want to waste your time with me yet endlessly reply to me. like ive already said, get a life, already.
>>2187591>you dont want to waste your time with me yet endlessly reply to mei dont want to waste my time repeating things i have already told you, but replying to you nets gold such as
>do you actually think marx is a scientist?>marx deals in flowery languagethat completely discredits you
>>2187596i just wanted to be helpful.
sorry if my tone was wrong.
>>2187592❤️
>>2187597>>2187597>i dont want to waste my time repeating things i have already told youand what have you told me? you just assert im wrong, but never actually positively affirm anything with evidence
>that completely discredits youyou never actually answered the question. is marx's work scientific or not? if so, what makes it scientific?
>>2187599You already conceded when you admitted that Marx's problem with Smith was that his concepts are incomplete, but you are still confused about how they could be incomplete if Marx agrees that Smiths concepts are oriented to capitalism, claiming historicity. This is because they are not historically oriented to capitalism, but just happened to be made from within capitalism, so while they do a good job categorizing the concepts of capitalism, they are not historically grounded. That is why Marx's concept of value is. Because Smith does not investigate the history, his analysis takes things as they appear, instead of in their historical determinations through social activity, which is why he misses the essence of value and money and thinks of them as transhistorical immutably fixed objects, just like you do, when you imply that the limit of production is money, elevating it to a law of nature.
>>2187604>>2187604>Marx's problem with Smith was that his concepts are incompletemarx's conceptual disagreement is only in that what smith allocates to wages and profits/rents, marx would rather characterise as value and surplus value, being based in labour-power rather than labour.
>but you are still confused about how they could be incomplete if Marx agrees that Smiths concepts are oriented to capitalism, claiming historicity.no, my disagreement with marx is that we can observably measure prices while we cannot measure values, therefore value in marxist terms will always remain a useless abstraction; a conceptual parasite.
>This is because they are not historically oriented to capitalism, but just happened to be made from within capitalismno, marx praises smith for conceiving the 3 revenues of wealth comporting to the 3 classes, which is why marx reproduces smith's analysis in capital vol. 3
>That is why Marx's concept of value isno, marx's theory of value comes from his unfortunate hegelianisms that treat value as a unity in the commodity and thusly alienated in its functions. okay, this can work philosophically (just oike his early writings on alienation), but economically? no.
>Because Smith does not investigate the historywhat history? as ive already explained, both smith and marx agree on the origins of value in barter.
>he misses the essence of value and money and thinks of them as transhistorical immutably fixed objectsnot at all. smith recognises that value changes over time.
>when you imply that the limit of production is moneybut you already agreed to this, by seeing how capitalist production is determined by exchange. this is marx's own crisis of overproduction put in simple terms.
>>2187611>but you already agreed to thisno i didn't, the limit of production is labor, the limit of production under capitalism is money, but capitalism is transient. without qualifiers on which production im obviously referring to the former. you said before that the existence of fiat disproves the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, yet here you are saying the crisis of overproduction is real.
>a useless abstractionso are you a positivist too?
>>2187614>you said before that the existence of fiat disproves the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, yet here you are saying the crisis of overproduction is real.the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is real, but marx misdiagnoses it's extremity being tied to "living labour" in production. what causes it is underconsumption (from unemployment, tied to the rise of constant capital replacing jobs), which is why economies grow in proportion to consumption of the social product (and why giving people "free money" actually helps everyone). fiat currency liberates consumption at the expense of commodity money, which is why all gold standard economies are inherently self-destructive. so marx is right, from a particular perspective, but misses its totality. this is shown in his treatment of commodity money as a "measure of value".
>so are you a positivist too?not all abstractions are useless. just marx's, in displacing prices for values.
>>2187619>so marx is right, from a particular perspective, but misses its totality.sounds like the opposite, that you are right from a particular perspective but missing the totality.
>marx misdiagnoses it's extremity being tied to "living labour" in production. what causes it is underconsumption (from unemployment, tied to the rise of constant capital replacing jobs)how is that not the same thing? what causes underconsumption? loss of jobs = less living labor. you cant have underconsumption without overproduction, you cant consume things if they arent produced.
>this is shown in his treatment of commodity money as a "measure of value".what makes you think that marx was saying this is how things have to be instead of just a description of how things were at the time?
>not all abstractions are useless.oh just the ones you dont agree with? like how smith's tautologies cancel out but marx's dont?
>>2187632>you are right from a particular perspective but missing the totality. how?
>you cant have underconsumption without overproduction, you cant consume things if they arent produced.but they *are* produced, just by machines. marx's argument can be summed up as "automation leads to falling rates of profit", but why? i say, its because people dont get enough money to consume what is produced, while marx says that theres not enough "variable capital" or "living labour" implemented. like many things, marx is thinking backwards.
>what makes you think that marx was saying this is how things have to be instead of just a description of how things were at the time?well marx doesnt say otherwise - and his followers also never say "mard is outdated, we need a new analysis of capitalism", so why would i presume otherwise? marx was right also about "fictitious capital" (credit-money) leading to crises like ths grrat depression. but the regime of fractional reserve banking has been overcome by fiat currency, so we no longer experience these same problems.
>like how smith's tautologies cancel out but marx's dont?if marx just stuck with values and measured capitalism using values alone, he'd be fine, but he tries to link values with prices, which cause confusion. marx's theory of the falling rate of profit for example makes sense from the perspective of labour-power, but if we broaden the condition of labour-power to machines, then the theory is falsified - but i dont consider labour-powers to be measurable entities either.
>>2187492>>"The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it. [capital vol. 1, ch. 1]"Yes, Marx is talking about a widespread change in productivity here. If one small business in a huge market comes up with a secret technique for speeding up its production, the productivity of the business, the number of units, and the value of the sum of its weekly output increases, even if the concrete labor time in the business remains the same. If its output though increased is still a drop in the ocean of the output of all the firms making that commodity, the value of the commodity goes down only slightly. If the secret leaks out and the improvement becomes widespread, the value of the commodity goes down more.
Going through the three phases here (1. before the invention, 2. invention used in secrecy, 3. invention becoming standard) and measuring concrete labor times in all the firms making the commodity tells the development of the value of the commodity, for each phase the value is just the average of concrete labor times going into each unit made.
>SNLT can only be measured by the wageSNL
T should be measured by clocks. And we deal with concrete labor time not being always socially necessary labor time by the scale trick (measuring for many people).
>yet marx is also saying that average prices =/= the value of commodities.Because of organic composition of capital being different in different industries. If average prices are set by SNLT, there is a systematic advantage for firms with low org. comp. and a systematic disadvantage for firms with high org. comp. So Marx assumes that if there were equal competition everywhere, the prices on average reflecting SNLT would result in advantages of business with low org. comp. and this would attract more investors, the result being more competition for those firms with low org. comp. and this in turn making the profit rates between firms of different org. comp. roughly equal in the long term. If profit rates are roughly equal, Marx reasons, the firms with high org. comp have to sell at higher prices relative to those from firms with lower org. comp. than the price ratio SNLT would predict.
>>2187647>just by machineswhich require human labor to create and maintain
>i say, its because people dont get enough money to consume what is produced, while marx says that theres not enough "variable capital" or "living labour" implemented.both are true, they dont get enough money because not enough living labour is implimented.
>like many things, marx is thinking backwards.idk how you think this is the case. production comes first, then consumption. and you dont even have to say production is primary you can just have both.
>well marx doesnt say otherwisewhy would he?
>and his followers also never say "mar[x] is outdated, we need a new analysis of capitalism"why should they, fiat does not change his analysis
>but he tries to link values with prices, which cause confusionits just a demonstration. the transformation "problem" comes from him doing incomplete napkin math and coming to the conclusion that there must be some constant factor that augments different types of labor and he didn't finish because its obviously true when considering the economy in total as has been now been proven and because it wasn't the object of his study but a trivial "and in addition" to dunk on people strawmanning him. hes giving the general formula for rate of change as exponential function describing its limits and you are trying to debunk it by saying what if it starts at 2 instead of 0, what if it starts at 3, or even 100! surely then it will cross the limit!
but you are ignoring class relations. okay you pay the machines a wage, who owns the machine? is it still a private capitalist? are you giving the machines citizenship? who is going to support that law? you want to have a UBI and you tax the machine wages to pay for it? lets assume the capitalists support this, why would they? they can overturn it as soon as it doesn't benefit them. they can use UBI to accumulate capital until there are no jobs and then implement their techno-fuedal dreams. the only way this works is if you make the machines public property and then you have just recreated communism.
>we no longer experience these same problems.it makes sense that you believe this and also the above. these tricks only work temporarily. reality has proven you wrong its just kicking the can down the road and crisis are still recurring. baffling that you bring up fractional reserve banking as an example of why recessions dont occur anymore since fiat lmao
For later…
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.” ― Adam Smith. Wealth of Nations, book 5, chapter 1, part 2 (Stating the obvious.)
“The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. ” (Sounds an awful lot like the Marxist concept of Alienation.)
― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations book 5 chapter 1 part 3
“In regards to the price of commodities, the rise of wages operates as simple interest does, the rise of profit operates like compound interest. Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.” (Capitalists never recognize their negative contribution to society. 100 Corporations cause the majority of carbon emissions for example.)
― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations Book 1 Chapter 9.
“Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions.”
― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations Book 5 chapter 1 part 2
"His employers constitute the third order, that of those who live by profit. It is the stock that is employed for the sake of profit which puts into motion the greater part of the useful labour of every society. The plans and projects of the employers of stock regulate and direct all the most important operations of labour, and profit is the end proposed by all those plans and projects. But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore, has not the same connection with the general interest of the society as that of the other two. Merchants and master manufacturers are, in this order, the two classes of people who commonly employ the largest capitals, and who by their wealth draw to themselves the greatest share of the public consideration. As during their whole lives they are engaged in plans and projects, they have frequently more acuteness of understanding than the greater part of country gentlemen. As their thoughts, however, are commonly exercised rather about the interest of their own particular branch of business, than about that of the society, their judgment, even when given with the greatest candour (which it has not been upon every occasion) is much more to be depended upon with regard to the former of those two objects than with regard to the latter. Their superiority over the country gentleman is not so much in their knowledge of the public interest, as in their having a better knowledge of their own interest than he has of his. It is by this superior knowledge of their own interest that they have frequently imposed upon his generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public, from a very simple but honest conviction that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public. The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, book 1 chapter conclusion.
>>2187671>which require human labor to create and maintainyou need animal and plant foods to survive too. also, marx's argument about machine value isnt based in the fact of their maintenance, but that in their "productive consumption" by workers, by wear and tear, they gradually lose their value, like how a mobile phone only lasts so long. marx imagines that the value transferred to the worker is a limited quantity, such as the labour which is embodied in it. now, this is as plainly ridiculous as asserting that just because a worker may only get enough to survive, that he does not produce more than this in total. man lives by means which are exceeded in production, and so is the machine, but how? because it is social labour which creates the machine, yet the machine's own labour is divided into a specific function, which like man's own division of labour, specialises him in production. a mobile phone may last years but it does not take years to make - what then attributes a fixed quantity to this capital? its price. but man also has a price; a price which he exceeds in profits. what makes capital unprofitable then? only that its total product is unsold. and this is the crisis of overproduction coinciding with the falling rate of profit. capital is *too* productive.
>both are true, they dont get enough money because not enough living labour is implimented.the cost of living labour is a wage, but what happens if you give a man a wage without him supplying living labour? its the same difference. whether a man works behind a counter or not is immaterial to the circulation of commodities.
>you dont even have to say production is primary you can just have both.i already imply both.
>fiat does not change his analysisof course it does.
>but you are ignoring class relationshow? by not singing the internationale every 5 seconds like every larper in here?
>the only way this works is if you make the machines public propertynot necessarily. you can also redistribute profits (i.e. UBI). remember, we are only talking about what is theoretically possible.
>and then you have just recreated communism.how? because the government does stuff?
>these tricks only work temporarilyyeah of course. profits are antagonistic to wages, so profit and consumption also enter into immanent contradiction. this is also why adam smith associates wealth with low profits and poverty with high profits. thus, the trend of free markets should be a form of social re-distribution. monopolies disrupt the spread of wealth, which is why rent-seekers make life more expensive while providing no value. have you ever thought, for example, that ~80% of "communists" prefigure the main class struggle as tenants vs landlords? complaining about "the boss" is contrived; the real tension is in rents and mortgages. abolish these and you wont even need communism. thats my classical liberalism; at least capitalists provide jobs and wages. under socialism you just work for big government instead of big business, no? something something "those who dont work shall not eat", as lenin put it.
>reality has proven you wronghow's that?
>baffling that you bring up fractional reserve banking as an example of why recessions dont occur anymorefiat currency abolished fractional reserve banking, which was based in holding a "fractional reserve" of commodity money, and the rest serving as credit-money. this state of affairs led to the great depression, since the reserves where emptied out and thus the credit had no backing. marx also in capital vol. 3, chapter 25, speaking on "fictitious capital" sees the contradiction between commodity-money and interest-bearing capital leading to crises, such as that which was precipitated by the crop failure of 1846 in the UK. the great irony of course is that commerce operates swimmingly until the due date of the loan, proving how the real fiction is in the value of money to begin with. marx freely admits that "bills of exchange" in credit operated as money for a time, until gold had to be put in place of it, and this then leads to crisis. of course, the primary case is true, that money is just an IOU. david graeber in his masterpiece "debt: the first 5000 years" also talks about this credit/money relation.
>>2187697❤️
>>2187650>Yes, Marx is talking about a widespread change in productivity here.yes, which consequently changes SNLT, and so makes it an indeterminate quantity.
>If one small business in a huge market comes up with a secret technique for speeding up its productionits not a secret, its just technological innovation, like marx's example of the power-loom; it doubles output and therefore halves the value of its individual product (this inverse relation between labour-time and productivity is the same difference to marx between abstract and concrete labour, or variable and constant capital, or absolute and relative surplus value - therefore, just like schumpeter, in marx's teleology, capitalism fails because it is too productive. the boom-bust cycle generalises this logic, and keynes applies the common cure of stimulation).
>for each phase the value is just the average of concrete labor times going into each unit made.i would prefer to say that the commodity's scarcity is lowered, which lowers its price in the market; but this is also regulated by a lower cost in production per commodity. its a chicken-and-egg thing once more, where you can attribute low scarcity to low SNLT - but alternatively, this logic ruins itself once we come into sight of purely market goods, like uncultivated land, which marx assigns with "imaginary prices". an imaginary price is still a nominal market price however, and so marx tries to have it both ways;
>"the imaginary price-form may sometimes conceal either a direct or indirect real value-relation [capital vol. 1, chapter 3]"i just prefer to say that some goods are purely market goods - like money.
>SNLT should be measured by clocksit is already measured by the wage.
>measuring for many peoplein my last warehouse job, my performance was individually recorded on a database, so capitalism has done very well to make labour as efficient as possible.
>Because of organic composition of capital being different in different industriesyes, but even at different rates of composition, the value of these commodities are still factored by marx as creating values which comport to prices which average across industry (as far as i can see, though i may be wrong). in capital vol. 3 is the dominant formula:
>[C = c + v + s]in chapter 1 for example, marx calls the "cost-price" of commodities [c + v] the "capitalist price", while calling the commodity-price [c + v + s] the "actual price", since surplus value is included in this final price, producing profits;
>c + v = (k) cost-price of a commodity>k + s = (C) value of commodity (price)in chapter 9, marx more systematically explores the rate of capital composition to determine prices and how they relate to values (i'll do my best to give exposition):
marx establishes 5 hypothetical capitals employed to fetch a profit, of which have different cost-prices [k], but all have the same rate of surplus value [s/v], yet due to the rate of organic composition [c/v], they produce different rates of profit [s/c], and so all produce separate prices (to go back to your point). marx then aggregates these figures into a single capital to create an average rate of composition; from this, the average surplus-value of each also becomes shared, and so, prices are dispersed. in this abstraction, marx then says that prices and values lose deviation. this also becomes the basis of a general rate of profit;
>"These different rates of profit are equalized by competition to a single general rate of profit, which is the average of all these different rates of profit."so considered as a whole, marx still sees average prices emerge. also, on prices of production, marx says this,
>"Hence, the price of production of a commodity is equal to its cost-price plus the profit [capital vol. 3, chapter 9]"proving smith right, once more. thus, what marx determines as the value of commodities [C = c + v + s] is actually in monetary terms, the cost of production;
<[Cost = Capital + Wages + Profits/Rents] >>2188671>marx imagines that the value transferred to the worker? Marx is saying that the machinery transfers its value to the commodities it helps produce.
>>2188673>>Yes, Marx is talking about a widespread change in productivity here.>yes, which consequently changes SNLT, and so makes it an indeterminate quantity.If it is widespread, we can use the scale trick again, so measuring concrete labor time is good enough for getting to SNLT.
>>If one small business in a huge market comes up with a secret technique for speeding up its production>its not a secret…
>>for each phase the value is just the average of concrete labor times going into each unit made.>i would prefer to say that the commodity's scarcity is lowered, which lowers its price in the marketIf the produced amount of something stays the same after an innovation reduces production time, its value drops and likely its price, too. But is it more scarce? You can define scarcity in a way that the answer is yes, but then there is no difference anymore between your scarcity concept and labor as the fundamental cost that other appearances of cost are derived from.
>>SNLT should be measured by clocks>it is already measured by the wage. SNLT literally refers to time. Wage is only a proxy for that.
>considered as a whole, marx still sees average prices emergeNot the contested point. The point is that according to Marx, the value ratios are not the best predictor for what price ratios oscillate around, he assumes the center for the oscillations to be the price ratios at equalized profit rates across industries.
>>2188754would you say you know kung fu?
>>2188744>Marx is saying that the machinery transfers its value to the commodities it helps produce.yes true. i misspoke.
>it is widespreadsure, but if we presume SNLT to measurably exist, could we not also directly measure variable changes in its rate of production? or is SNLT to you necessarily an abstraction after the fact? so to say, can we determine values before the act of production, or is value only realised in the constitutive act of exchange? my reading of marx derives from this preliminary understanding of the commodity as a "social use value", as he puts it in capital vol. 1 chapter 1,
>"To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange [.] Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value."this mirrors what david ricardo writes in chapter 1 of principles of political economy,
>"Utility then is not the measure of exchangeable value, al-though it is absolutely essential to it. If a commodity were in no way useful,—in other words, if it could in no way con-tribute to our gratification,—it would be destitute of exchange-able value, however scarce it might be, or whatever quantity of labour might be necessary to procure it."this unity of the commodity (between its production and exchange) realises value. so then, my issue in the concept of SNLT is that it can only be inferred from prices in the first place.
>If the produced amount of something stays the same after an innovation reduces production time, its value drops and likely its price, tooyes, by relation of production costs. this is where i am speculative of marx's meaning however. if we read this passage for example,
>"If we could succeed at a small expenditure of labour, in converting carbon into diamonds, their value might fall below that of bricks [capital vol. 1, ch. 1]"is this value already actual in the relation to labour-power, or is it only potential, and realised in the sale? to me, it is the same difference; production costs are cheaper.
>SNLT literally refers to time. Wage is only a proxy for that.but you also cant determine SNLT outside of the wage; for example, to marx, even if you halved the working day, the wage would stay the same. you might say that the minimum working day and minimun wage meet at SNLT, but this is also a speculative quantity. how would we practically determine this? who gets to work less for more?
>he assumes the center for the oscillations to be the price ratios at equalized profit rates across industries.but these generalised profits are also added to the cost-price of the commodity and as marx says, the prices and values cancel out into costs of production: [k + s].
but maybe i missed your point. if i did, please restate it.
>>2053454>>2053459Can this be reviewed and updated?
Literally exactly what I've been looking for, phrased in a way that people can actually understand, and
actually makes a point of clearly seperating "the boss" and "the system" so petty-booj don't fliptheirshit and discount it straight away…
>>2188761>would you say you know kung fu?soooon…
But I know I need sleep that's for sure.
>>2188671>you need animal and plant foods to survive too. right and you could do the same analysis with the common factor being calories or joules instead
>marx's argument about machine value isnt based in the fact of their maintenance, but that in their "productive consumption" by workers, by wear and tear, they gradually lose their valuethey dont lose value the value is transferred through use. a certain amount of value is embedded in the machine from the labor it took to build it.
>man lives by means which are exceeded in production, and so is the machineabsurd
>of course it does.no it doesn't
>how? by socializing the outputs of production instead of leaving them to private interests
>yeah of course. then what the fuck is the point of your rambling? you say fiat debunks marx and then after all this you admit its a temporary measure that does not solve the inherent contradiction
>the real tension is in rentsif you mean monopoly then you are just agreeing with marx lol thats literally the conclusion of all his analysis around trpf
>abolish these and you wont even need communism.except you would because as long as private property remains you are just recreating the same problem
>how's that?how about the oil shock immediately after introducing fiat? stagflation? the dot com crash? the great recession and the covid crash as well as the current crisis we are in rightnow
>how? by not singing the internationale every 5 secondsyou are literally doing exactly what marx critiques, treating social relations between people as objective relations between things. its just strait up commodity fetishism.
the physical limit of an economy is how much labor goes into it, but you are putting money before labor, treating it as an fact, as a thing, rather than a social relation between people. the limit under capitalism is not money, its the social relation, the permission to work from a person who holds capital, which is why the class struggle is central to marx's theory. the point is to unleash the forces of production to overcome scarcity through rational planning, to overcome the social limit, not to print enough permission slips. its crazy to me that this has been explained over and over and over and over and you still dont get it.
>>2188761>but you also cant determine SNLT outside of the wageyou cant count how many hours an average person works in a day? youve got a population of 100 and they all work 10 hours so you got 1000 hours per day. so youve got 1000 man-hours total spread out in the economy. whats the problem?
>>2188783>they dont lose value the value is transferred through use.to marx, the value is lost from constant capital and transferred into the commodity.
>a certain amount of value is embedded in the machine from the labor it took to build it.but what is the form of this value? the price
>absurdonce more you are pretending that man is uniquely productive
>then what the fuck is the point of your rambling?to be academic
>you say fiat debunks marxit debunks marx's analysis of capital, yes, since he presumes living labour to be tied to the exchange relation of the wage - this is because of the limits of marx's own time.
>if you mean monopoly then you are just agreeing with marx lolno, marx is agreeing with the classical school.
>as long as private property remains you are just recreating the same problemyou create different problems
>stagflationthat came from price controls on oil, not fiat currency. the price controls tried to mimic the gold standard of 1971, which ended up creating crises, which were only aleviated once fiat currency's floating exchange rate sorted values according to the market. the issue once again was gold.
>the great recessionthat had to do with bank credit, not fiat. it was fiat which bailed out the global economy after that however.
>the current crisis we are in rightnowwhich one is that?
>the limit under capitalism is not moneyyes it is. all economic crises are about this.
>the point is to unleash the forces of production to overcome scarcity through rational planningyou do realise that in a market everything is scarce? overcoming scarcity just means abolishing markets.
>you cant count how many hours an average person works in a day?you do realise that to marx the working day is divided into "necessary" and "surplus" labour right? and that this is the basis of profits? the difficulty is in determining what amount is necessary, since wages come as a portion of profits in the total product.
>>2188795if youve got 1000 man-hours and the average wage is x per hour, and the total economy is y then you have 1000 = y. you got x * 10 *100 = y. so where is profit coming from? there must be a third factor z, that we call surplus value, so you have x*10*100-z=y and z=x*10*100/y, or the portion of total labor time not paid out in wages that is appropriated by the capitalist. its really not complicated
>man is uniquely productivehe is, machines dont exist without people to make them
>marx is agreeing with the classical schoolexcept classically monopoly was an aberration, yet marx shows that monopoly is the natural tendency
>that had to do with bank credit, not fiatit had to do with fractional reserve you dingus
>it was fiat which bailed out the global economy and now we are in another crisis
>different problemsoh yeah cause a regular recession is different from a great recession lmao
>overcoming scarcity just means abolishing markets.is that what you are proposing? wont there be a market for robo-wages?
>>2188799>the portion of total labor time not paid out in wagesbut again, this can only be determined *after* profits have already been realised. thus SNLT only has a reality in reference to the price.
>he is, machines dont exist without people to make themand man doesnt exist without plant and animal foods - is man's power then limited to this? is his productivity limited to his wage?
>except classically monopoly was an aberration, yet marx shows that monopoly is the natural tendencynot really; profit naturally accumulates. that is basic understanding. what is purely "accidental" however is rents. that is the monopoly i was describing.
>it had to do with fractional reserve you dingusand that differs from credit relations how? i already explained how fractional reserve banking leads to crisis through is mismatch between money and credit. i cited marx's comments on fictitious capital also. fiat abolishes this state of affairs by a central bank which holds no reserves.
>and now we are in another crisisand what is that crisis?
>is that what you are proposing?no, that is your suggestion in central planning. scarcity isnt an issue in itself - its just that some people think of it as a "lack" of something rather than a ratio. oxygen is scarce, but also abundant.
>>2188808>but again, this can only be determined *after* profits have already been realised. thus SNLT only has a reality in reference to the price.the portion of total labor time
timeand you can determine it in aggregate but you have to measure the total over a period, like a day, because SNLT isn't determined by what one specific worker does but by all of them together. why do you think he talks about how one guy is taller and stronger and all that?
>what is purely "accidental" however is rents. that is the monopoly i was describingand yet rent happens all the time
>and man doesnt exist without plant and animal foods - is man's power then limited to this? its limited by output from the sun and how much of that energy humanity can capture through transforming their environment through labor
>>2188813>the portion of total labor timeyes… a time you expressly measured by the wage
>SNLT isn't determined by what one specific worker does but by all of them togetherbut if this is the case, SNLT can only be said to be an abstraction borne from existing conditions and not calculated ahead of time; thus it is an indeterminate quantity, as i say (objectively immeasurable). what is measurable however is prices, including wages.
>and yet rent happens all the timeso what? it doesnt have to happen. marx even sees landlords as remnants from the feudal past and thinks industrial capital must outcompete them (since to marx, ground rents affect the price of production, and therefore limits profits).
>inputs of energynow, think of the wage as representing this input in monetary terms; then think of the price of a machine as the cost of its production, which can be replaced using the machine itself.
>>2188818>yes… a time you expressly measured bydays, hours, minutes etc. wages are not a price alone, they are a price per hour and you are negating the time to talk about price - but the common factor between all money in circulation and wages is the dollars, which cancel out, leaving the hour part as the remainder with no equivalent
>SNLT can only be said to be an abstraction borne from existing conditions and not calculated ahead of time; thus it is an indeterminate quantity,sure thats fine, but we can still determine its limits, like in the analogy i gave of an exponential function where you find the asymptote. like you just said its a ratio, when talking about a rate of change across time you plot it out to infinity, which it never reaches, yet there is a definite limit it cannot cross.
>>2188824>wages are not a price alone, they are a price per hour and you are negating the time to talk about priceto me, time is immaterial to the costs of production in relation to the total output. a marxist will only insist that the price of labour reflects the value of labour-power, but if it is the same difference in the end, then only concrete labours count. for example, if we take the total product and share it equally in wages, we have SNLT as the mean price per hour of labour; so then, SNLT is just the accounting for the wage, not the measure of a real relation. ny issue is only in the fact that marxists want to consider SNLT (value) as an independent entity, but to me, it is entirely derivarive of the wage.
>we can still determine its limitsthe limits only have reference to the mean
>>2188833>the limits only have reference to the meanwhich would be the focus of your study if your object is to understand the economy as a whole. you would be focused on individual prices if your object of study is how to more efficiently squeeze profits from labor.
>to me, time is immateriallol
>to me, it is entirely derivarive of the wageis this one of those things where you are stuck on the word "value" and doing the 'what?! time has no value dollars do!' thing. if we call it something other then value would that help you? after all marx probably did steal the word to be inflammatory. why is it a problem if he cares more about labor than money?
>It was an immense step forward for Adam Smith to throw out every limiting specification of wealth-creating activity—not only manufacturing, or commercial or agricultural labour, but one as well as the others, labour in general. With the abstract universality of wealth-creating activity we now have the universality of the object defined as wealth, the product as such or again labour as such, but labour as past, objectified labour. How difficult and great was this transition may be seen from how Adam Smith himself from time to time still falls back into the Physiocratic system. Now, it might seem that all that had been achieved thereby was to discover the abstract expression for the simplest and most ancient relation in which human beings—in whatever form of society—play the role of producers. This is correct in one respect. Not in another. Indifference towards any specific kind of labour presupposes a very developed totality of real kinds of labour, of which no single one is any longer predominant. As a rule, the most general abstractions arise only in the midst of the richest possible concrete development, where one thing appears as common to many, to all. Then it ceases to be thinkable in a particular form alone. On the other side, this abstraction of labour as such is not merely the mental product of a concrete totality of labours. Indifference towards specific labours corresponds to a form of society in which individuals can with ease transfer from one labour to another, and where the specific kind is a matter of chance for them, hence of indifference. Not only the category, labour, but labour in reality has here become the means of creating wealth in general, and has ceased to be organically linked with particular individuals in any specific form. Such a state of affairs is at its most developed in the most modern form of existence of bourgeois society—in the United States. Here, then, for the first time, the point of departure of modern economics, namely the abstraction of the category 'labour', 'labour as such', labour pure and simple, becomes true in practice. The simplest abstraction, then, which modern economics places at the head of its discussions, and which expresses an immeasurably ancient relation valid in all forms of society, nevertheless achieves practical truth as an abstraction only as a category of the most modern society. One could say that this indifference towards particular kinds of labour, which is a historic product in the United States, appears e.g. among the Russians as a spontaneous inclination. But there is a devil of a difference between barbarians who are fit by nature to be used for anything, and civilized people who apply themselves to everything. And then in practice the Russian indifference to the specific character of labour corresponds to being embedded by tradition within a very specific kind of labour, from which only external influences can jar them loose.
>This example of labour shows strikingly how even the most abstract categories, despite their validity—precisely because of their abstractness—for all epochs, are nevertheless, in the specific character of this abstraction, themselves likewise a product of historic relations, and possess their full validity only for and within these relations.
>>2188835>>2188835>why is it a problem if he cares more about labor than money?he doesnt care about "labour". marx thinks labour has no value. marx cares about labour-power, or abstract labour-time.
the issue is that this labour-time only gains economic reality in the wage, and so SNLT is an abstraction made after concrete labour has been sold. thus, abstract labour is derived from concrete labour, not the other way round. if it were the opposite case, you could measure SNLT ahead of time, but you cant, since as marx says, if a commodity is unsold, it has no value.
>>2188837what about them? im not denying the abstraction, im denying that the abstraction takes precedence.
>>2188849>he doesnt care about "labour". marx cares about labour-power, or abstract labour-time.pedantic semantics
>im not denying the abstraction'real abstractions' not abstractions that are real
>>2188839 https://www.marxists.org/subject/dialectics/marx-engels/grundisse.htm <Why labour is the starting point of capital
>It was the publication of Capital 3 in 1894 that spurred Bflhm-Bawerk to pull his various attacks on Marx together. The chapters in this third volume dealing with the formation of the average rate of profit, the famous transformation problem, were, for BOhm-Bawerk, the "Russian campaign" of Marxism. "I cannot help myself," he confesses, "I see here no explanation and reconciliation of a contradiction but the bare contradiction itself. Marx's third volume contradicts the first. The theory of the average rate of profit and of the prices of production cannot be reconciled with the theory of value" (p. 30). Why? Because "the 'great law of value' which is 'immanent in the exchange of commodities'…states and must state that commodities are exchanged according to the socially necessary labour time embodied within them" (p. 12). But although the third volume is the taking-off point of BOhm-Bawerk's critique and his title suggests that his main concern is with the "close" or "completion" of the Marxist "system", the most significant section of his book deals with its "opening". "A firmly rooted system" such as Marxism, he writes, "can only be effectually overthrown by discovering with absolute precision the point in which the error made its way into this system…" (p. 64). And this point is right at the start of Capital 1, where Marx "in the systematic proof of his fundamental doctrine exhibits a logic continuously and palpably wrong" (p. 80). Tracking down and then demonstrating this "error in the Marxist system" is the actual more fruitful and instructive part of the criticism" (p. 65). It has another dimension. The critique of bourgeois economy runs seam-like through the whole of Capital but in the first few pages of Capital 1 against which BOhm-Bawerk directs the main thrust of his attack, it forms the bedrock of the text. For in establishing his own theoretical ground, Marx simultaneously challenged the foundations of bourgeois economics. Whether BOhm-Bawerk was fully aware of the issues at stake, it is hard to say; even if he were not his instinct took him to the heart of the matter. "The theory of value", he recognised, "stands, as it were, in the centre of the entire doctrine of political economy". And once a "labour theory of value" is conceded, Marx' conclusions about surplus value, exploitation and the class struggle follow inexorably. "In the middle part of the Marxian system", Bfthm-Bawerk concedes, "the logical development and connection present a really imposing closeness and intrinsic consistency" (p. 88). This is the first reason why it is so important for him to dismiss once and for all the "hypothesis" on which it is based—the proposition advanced right at the beginning of Capital 1 that the value of commodities is determined by the amount of (abstract) labour socially necessary for their production. The second is that no other theory of value, and particularly the various forms of neo-classical value theory, can claim legitimacy until Marxism has been thoroughly discredited. Thus when BOhm-Bawerk locks horns with the opening pages of Capital it is not merely Marxism that is thrown into the melting-pot but the whole of bourgeois economy[…]
>"The error in the Marxist system" According to BOhm-Bawerk, Marx's method of discovering the nature of value is "a purely logical proof" (p. 63). Starting with an "old-fashioned" idea derived from Aristotle that the exchange of commodities is a quantitative relationship pre-supposing some property they share in common, "Marx searches for the 'common factor' which is characteristic of exchange value in the following way: he passes in review the various properties possessed by objects made equal in exchange, and according to the method of exclusion, separates all those that cannot stand the test until at last only one property remains, that of being the product of labour. This therefore must be the sought-for common property" (p. 69). Although this method of "purely negative proof" does not commend itself to BOhm-Bawerk, he accepts it as "singular but not in itself objectionable", (pp. 68-9). The problem is the way Marx made use of it. And on this point BOhm-Bawerk launches a three-pronged attack. First, he says, Marx rigged the result by leaving certain things out of his "logical sieve". Second, letting this by, there are other common facts than labour that Marx has no right to ignore. And third, Marx' entire logic can be reversed and "value in use could be substituted for labour" (p. 77). These three lines of attack stake out in the clearest possible way the terrain of fundamental theory on which Marxism and neo-classical economics confront each other. The remainder of this section deals with each in turn.
>Marx' commodity is not coterminous with goods that exchange in the market. The "gifts of nature", land, natural resources, trees, minerals and so on, exchange in the same way as commodities but unlike them they do not embody labour. Thus BOhm-Bawerk concludes: "If Marx had not confined his research, at this decisive point, but had sought for the common factor in the exchangeable gifts of nature as well, it would have become obvious that work cannot be the common factor" (p. 73). This is an ingenious gambit. It appears at one stroke to separate Marx's theory from the most obvious and easily verifiable features of reality, while at the same time opening the way for the alternative view that the real common factor of goods, natural as well as man-made, is their utility and scarcity. Furthermore it appears to expose Marx to another criticism that BOhm-Bawerk is quick to press home. Marx was fully aware that non-commodities exchange and their exclusion from the logical sieve can, therefore, be nothing more than a deliberate ommission. "That Marx was truly and honestly convinced of the truth of his thesis I do not doubt", patronises BOhm-Bawerk, "but the grounds of his conviction are not those which he gives in his system. They are in reality opinions rather than thought out conclusions" (p. 78). And later: "he knew the result he wished to obtain, and so he twisted and manipulated the long-suffering ideas with admirable skill and subtlety until they yielded the desired result in a respectable syllogistic form" (p. 79). In the language of modern bourgeois theory, Marx's failure to take account of exchangeable goods not produced by labour is evidence of the ideological nature of his theory, the unacceptable subordination of positive economics to value judgement[…]
>Let us get to the heart of the mattery—the significance of the undisputed fact that non-commodities such as the free gifts of nature exchange as though they were commodities. Trees grown in a virgin forest, for example, can exchange, that is have a price,3 in much the same way as commodities that embody labour. But this exchangeability does not arise out of their natural properties. It is true, as Marx emphasised continually, that only those items that satisfy some human need will enter into human intercourse; but the nature of this intercourse is not determined by the physical and natural characteristics of the items as such: these make the item a use-value not an exchange value. For virgin trees to be exchanged requires that they not only satisfy some human need—construction material or fuel or whatever—but that they are private property. The natural properties of trees that make them suitable for building or burning merely tells us that some men will make use of them: it does not tell us that these users will also be buyers. This requires further specifications: the users of trees must be prevented from appropriating them directly; or, what is to say the same thing, the trees must be the property of some individual whose claim over them is recognised and substantiated socially. For the gifts of nature to enter the market alongside commodities requires the existence of the market and the system of property relations associated with it. The apparent plausibility of BOhm-Bawek's criticism begins to melt away at this point. Consider land and its 'price', money-rent, which is the most important economic transaction involving gifts of nature. Historically the emergence of money-rent, the exchange of the use of land for money, followed the development of commodity production; that is to say, it happened only after a decisive proportion of agricultural production had taken the form of commodities.4 But what is even more to the point here is that not only is rent historically subsequent to commodity production, but it is also dependent upon it. Ricardo demonstrated this in detail and we have here one of the few parts of classical political economy that was assimilated into neo-classical theory. The magnitude of rent does not determine the prices of commodities; on the contrary, it is determined by these prices. Thus in excluding non-commodities from his sieve Marx was pursuing a line perfectly in keeping not only with classical political economy but also with the school of thought which BOhm-Bawerk represents. This part of BOhm-Bawerk's criticism, so plausible at first sight, collapses completely when confronted with the theory of rent and the logic of Marx's position that we can only analyse the exchange of non-commodities once we have analysed commodities stands its ground
with ease[…]
>Marx's argument is not that commodity exchange arises on the basis of a common factor shared by all commodities. It is more substantial and straight-forward: that in exchange labour is the common property that regulates the terms of trade. BOhm-Bawerk does not challenge this. He merely misrepresents Marx's argument as formalist—and this brings us to the crux of the matter[…]
>The final thrust of BOhm-Bawerk's critique is a confrontation of his own theory with that of Marx in an attempt to show that if Marx had used his "purely logical method of deduction" correctly he would have reached the conclusion that labour was not the basis of value. "If Marx had chosen to reverse the order of the examination, the same reasoning that led to the exclusion of value in use would have excluded labour: and then the reasoning that resulted in the crowning of labour might have led him to declare the value in use to be the only property left, and therefore to be the sought-for common property, and value to be the cellular tissue of value in use" (p. 77). At best then, the "negative" approach cannot dismiss use-value, so that Marx's method fails at one and the same time to establish the premises of its own theory upon an unambiguous base and provide a determinate criticism of the neo-classical alternative. At this point BOhm-Bawerk challenges the dialectical method head on.[…]
>We have seen that according to BOhm-Bawerk, Marx's method is "a purely logical proof, a dialectic deduction from the very nature of exchange", (p. 68). The fact that these two expressions are not equivalent does not strike the Austrian. "A dialectic deduction from the very nature of exchange" is not "a purely logical proof": the one refers to a method which is enquiring into a particular phenomenon—i.e. exchange; the other is as it says purely logical, it has no particular object. ''If Marx's method had been of this latter kind it could be represented as follows: imagine a population P consisting of individuals each of which has two characteristics of properties, A and B. In every member of the population, these properties A and B, are present though in specific forms that vary from one individual to the next. Thus the generic property A presents itself as a', a"., .while property B presents itself as b', b"…And under conditions such as these neither Marx nor anyone else could claim that property B is the only common property for it alone can exist in the general form B, while A can only exist in the specific forms a', a"…For in a purely logical analysis there is no reason why one property should have different characteristics to another. Believing that Marx had in fact employed, and abused a logical method of this kind, BOhm-Bawerk claimed there is no reason why the particular types of labour that exist in commodities can be generalised as the common property of abstract labour, while particular use-value cannot be generalised in exactly the same way. He says this because he sees the problem as a logical one in which labour and utility are merely names given to symbols: the two are formal equivalents in a logical system therefore they are real equivalents. No logical method can distinguish the one from the other—hence the need for some positive proof. This brings the differences between the two methods into sharp focus. In neo-classical thought, theory is a purely formalist activity with no real content, and its link with the historical process it attempts to confront must be through a leap into observations which are not and cannot be organically related to the theory. The dialectical method makes no such separation. Its theory is never purely formal, but always has a real content. It is, therefore, never separated from the concrete by an unbridgeable gulf. Thus when Marx claims that the specific concrete labour that creates commodities is reduced to abstract labour, while use-value can only exist in particular forms and is not generalised in the same way; he is making a proposition that has to do with the real nature of labour and use-value. The assymetry between his analysis of labour on the one side and use-value on the other, is not due to a false application of a logic which should treat them as though they were the same: the assymetry follows from the different natures of labour and use-value. In other words, it is the category under examination that determines the path and the movement of logic in the dialectical method. The methodology of Capital, therefore, and here, particularly its opening section, is inseparably linked to its content, since Marx like Hegel, did not make the separation between logic and category that is characteristic of the model-real world separation that we find in the positivism of the social sciences. The issue at stake is the substantial one of discovering the basis of exchange in capitalist society, and Marx knew better than BOhm-Bawerk that this was not a task of pure logic.
>It is therefore the physical body of the commodity itself, for instance, iron, corn, a diamond, which is the use-value or useful thing." (C. p. 126) In other words, for Marx, utility means nothing except when it has a particular material form. As something in general it has no existence and is therefore unreal[…]
[The body was too long.]
[The body was too long.]
>Thus at the very start of Capital, and on a point crucial to the distinction between Marxist and bourgeois theory, we see the close affinity between the methods of Marx and Hegel. In Hegel's objective idealism, the link between the phenomenal world of existence and the reality that stands behind it is indissoluble: in fact, reality is embodied in existence and only becomes real in this way. Thus when Marx says that usefulness has no existence apart from the physical properties of the commodity, he is following Hegel quite closely. For if use-value in general can, by its nature, have no existence, it can also have no reality—except, that is, in the mind of the neo-classical economist. It has the same reality as a dream, for instance, and while a dream might tell us something about the mind of the dreamer it is hardly a reliable guide to the world he inhabits.5 Bfihm-Bawerk does not understand this. He does not understand that Marx dismissed the idea of use-value in general not on logical grounds, but because it has no reality. For Marx it is precisely the fact that use-value can only exist in specific forms that provides the reason for exchange in its most basic form of one commodity for another: i.e. because use-value is specific, commodities differ from each other as use-values and this provides a reason for exchanging them. To insist with BOhm-Bawerk that use-value is not only the reason for exchange in this sense, but also its basis and its measure, posits among other things the category of general utility. But as such a category is incapable by its nature of achieving any form of existence, it is doomed to unreality, and any theory based upon it must be a contentless abstraction[…]
>And as such it exposes itself to exactly the same type of criticism. If abstract labour exists only as concrete labour, if it can have no mode of existence apart from concrete labour in all its various forms; then how is it any different from general utility that can only exist as specific use-values? Thus when Marx claims that "all human labour is an expenditure of human labour-power in a physiological sense and it is in this quality of being equal or abstract that it forms the value of commodities"; (C.p. 137) Bfihm-Bawerk could easily retort that all use-values are use-values in a psychological sense and that it is here that we can discover the secret of value. In which case the method of the two theories is the same and BOhm-Bawerk's contention that the only way to chose between them is on the grounds of "positive proof" apparently rests on firm ground[…]
>It is a purely classificatory category and as such has no existence. In the same way, if we constitute abstract labour as the common property of concrete labour—the expenditure of muscles, brains etc.—we are inventing a mental abstraction and not discovering the real abstraction that Marx was after. In analysing exchange value, Marx remarked that "it cannot be anything other than the mode of expression, the form of appearance of a content distinguishable from it." (C.p. 127) The distinguishable content he was referring to here was of course value. Similarly we can talk of concrete labour being the form of appearance of a content distinguishable from it, here meaning abstract labour. But abstract labour defined simply as the common property of concrete labour is not distinguishable at all. It can no more be distinguished from concrete labour than the quality of being a mammal can be distinguished from the feline body of a cat or the canine one of the dog. It cannot be distinguished quite simply because there is nothing to distinguish, because it does not exist.
>Moreover, as the few lines cited above show, this method of procedure leads inexorably towards a dehistoricisation of the categories. For if our abstractions are derived merely as common properties—i.e. from specific form to genus—not only can they have no form of existence at all, but equally they have the same status, the same possibility of non-existence and therefore existence, at all periods in history. As regards our immediate subject, labour: if abstract labour is merely the common property of concrete labour, then as concrete labour indisputably exists in every form of society, it must follow that abstract labour has the same universal presence. And if abstract labour is universally present then its product value cannot be far from the scene, even where we do not find the definite historical form of commodity production. Thus wherever we depart from dialecticism and employ a mode of abstraction that moves from specific form to genus, we inevitably lose the historical dimension which is such a vital element of Marx's theory[…]
>There is no doubt that part of the difficulty in this case arises from the term "abstract", the alternative term that Marx sometimes employs, social labour, is preferable in that it is much less prone to ambiguity. While it can easily appear that abstract labour is somehow the interior essence of concrete labour, so that the two cannot exist together on the same plane so to speak; the terms individual or specific when substituted for concrete labour on the one side, and social for abstract labour on the ot,her, do not present the same confusion.
>Consider an elementary act of exchange where one individual makes a coat and exchanges it for twenty yards of linen made by another individual. In the case of both individuals, the labour is specific and concrete; tailoring in the one case, and weaving in the other. But when they exchange their commodities in order to acquire a different use-value, each individual learns in the most practical way possible that through the expenditure of his own particular type of labour he can acquire the product of another particular type of labour. Through the process of exchange the tailor can by tailoring acquire the product of weaving. When exchange becomes general and all use-values enter the market as commodities, any one type of labour becomes the means to acquire the product of any other type of labour. As Marx puts it: "one use-value is worth just as much as another provided only that it is present in the appropriate quantity." (C.p. 127) Which means that any one type of labour when embodied in a commodity becomes the equivalent in a qualitative sense of every other type of labour that is also embodied in commodities no matter how different they may be. Thus it is not the disappearance of differences among all the various types of concrete labour that provides the form of existence of abstract or social labour; on the contrary it is these differences and their development that provide the necessity for such a form. As concrete labour becomes more varied, that is to say as the division of labour develops and with it commodity production; individual labour ceases to be exclusively individual and increasingly becomes an aspect of social labour. Or to look at it another way, labour remains specific, it is still this or that type of labour, but it does not and cannot operate in isolation. Under a situation of generalised commodity production, even when production is organised on an individual basis, labour is at once individual but also social, at once specific but an organic part of social labour, at once concrete but also abstract. Thus Bflhm-Bawerk's criticism that the existence of different forms of labour, particularly skilled and unskilled labour, excludes the possibility of abstract labour, labour as the common factor, is completely superceded, since these differences far from being ignored by Marx or conjoured away by some trick of dialectical logic, are posited as the very basis for the existence of abstract labour[…]
>We can now pick up an important matter mentioned in passing at the start: BOhm-Bawerk's firmly held conviction that if the law of value means anything it is that the prices of commodities are proportionate to their values. For him there can be no solution to the transformation problem, for any systematic deviation of prices from (relative) values stands in flat contradiction to the theory of value which he finds in Capital 1. There are two aspects to this issue. The first concerns the quantitative relationship between value and price (of production), and here it can be shown with ease that BOhm-Bawerk defined the question too narrowly. He sees the magnitude of value as the sole determinant of price, whereas it is the magnitude of value in conjunction with its composition that in fact determines prices—and, this, of course, is perfectly consistent with the general proposition that the prices of commodities are determined by their values. In so far as the problems raised here exist on the same plain of abstraction they are of little fundamental importance, and in this sense Joan Robinson was right to call the transformation problem "merely an anlytical puzzle which like all puzzles ceases to be of interest once it has been solved."9 The second aspect of BOhm-Bawerk's critique is much more than a puzzle as it comprises what is perhaps the most important point of separation and opposition of Marxism and bourgeois economics—the relationship between quantity and quality. We have seen" that the contentless abstraction is characteristic of the positivist method with the consequence that theory is separated from the historical process by an unbridgeable gulf[…]
>The conclusion that follows from all this is that BOhm-Bawerk's critique does not have a single point of validity. The Marxist need not concede a single thing to him. But paradoxically, this is what makes his book so valuable, for refuting it, as we have tried to show, involves reaching down to the very fundamentals of Marxism. At the same time, Karl Marx and the Close of his System is undoubtedly the most substantive criticism that any bourgeois economist has ever levelled against Capital. It has inspired all other criticisms as Sweezy points out. But more than this, it lays neo-classical theory on the line. For in attempting to attack Marx on what was, if anything his strongest front, the opening of Capital, BOhm-Bawerk revealed the foundations of his own science, and revealed them to be faulty. The Russian retreat of Marxism turns into the Waterloo of neo-classicism, but sadly it has not been banished to obscurity. Its flourishing survival, though, is perhaps the least of problems in itself: more important for the working-class movement is the damaging effect its positivistic method has had upon Marxism from within. With the collapse of neo-classicism under the weight of its misconceptions and inconsistencies, this becomes even more important. Within the realm of economics Marxism can no longer be challenged frontally from a neo-classical perspective; it can however be emasculated from within. The republication of BOhm-Bawerk's book will be a timely and valuable addition to the literature only if it is read with this danger in mind.
go to the new thread:
>>2189753this one has been archived:
https://archive.ph/ROnpOAny new posts added to this thread did not make it into the official thread 2 archive link
Unique IPs: 220