the funniest thing about "anti-revisionism" vs "revisionism" is that it is not something Marx ever mentioned, because he would never imagine himself as the static, unchanging root of a globe-spanning political project called "Marxism" with various branches like "Marxism-Leninism", "Marxism-Leninism-Mao-Zedong-Thought", "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism", "Stalinism, "Hoxhaism" and so on . Instead, Marx revised himself several times during his own life, moving from a framework rooted in alienation and species-being, to a framework rooted in (what would later be called) historical and dialectical materialism. Engels famously said that he and Marx's system was a method, not a dogma, and Kim-Il-Sung repeated this when innovating Juche, as did Deng Xiaoping when innovating "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics", make of that what you will. So if innovation is allowed and Marxism is a method, and not a dogma, why all the controversy about "revisionism?" If Marxism is meant to be applied to unique spatio-temporal conditions which outsiders, even sympathetic outsiders, usually fail to understand, why do outsiders always look for "revisionism" to condemn? Why not just accept that we are all striving not for "[insert the name of Great Men]" -ism but Communism and that our paths towards Communism are evolutionarily convergent from our different spatiotemporal standpoints rather than divergent from some imagined "anti-revisionist" standpoint? Am I being revisionist right now?
Let's look at how Marxists.org defines revisionism (you may disagree with each other on this very point):
> Revisionism
>A fundamental alteration of a theory, essentially usurping (though taking elements of) the former theory and replacing it with a new one. While the attributes of a theory are subject to change in accordance to changing historic circumstances, changing the fundamental basis of that theory is to nullify it in place of a new one.
Was Marx "Revisionist" when he revised himself? Who has the authority to decide the criteria for what is "subject to change in accordance to changing historic circumstances" and what is not?
I think the encouraging results of an even half-successful practice matter more than the purity of theory, personally.
56 posts and 12 image replies omitted.>>2803913>static, unchangingwell thats not what revisionism means so not really relevant
>>2803913 >innovationmarxism isnt islam lol
>why all the controversy about "revisionism?it means throwing away principles not simply adapting to material conditions
>>2805436does innovation have some special meaning in the context of islam
>>2805262>What is the the main defining factor of natural price?socially necessary labor time, in production
>What is the the main defining factor of market price?supply and demand, to the extent that it deviates from natural price
>>2805436>well thats not what revisionism means so not really relevant>it means throwing away principles not simply adapting to material conditionswell I'm glad you understand that. too bad a lot of others don't. also many seem unable to distinguish when principles are being abandoned and when an adaptive strategy is being used. that is how you get people on here who say socialism has never even been tried.
>>2805651>socially necessary labor time, in production>supply and demand, to the extent that it deviates from natural priceSo would it be right to say that labour is the "the main defining factor of the price of some product"?
>>2805648yeah its like their version of revisionism lol maybe closer to eclecticism or smth
except religion actually endorses dogmatism so…
>>2805659Not necessarily. The labour theory of value =/= the labour theory of any singular product prices. That's volume one, chapter one of capital.
Really the main equality is total labour time = sum of all prices (ie. Sum (i=[1,n]) of ((pi)x(ui)), where pi is the price of item i & ui is the number of units produced, & n is total number of products. All these embedded in a given time period)
>>2805667>The labour theory of value =/= the labour theory of any singular product price>the main equality is total labour time = sum of all pricesSo labour is the main defining factor of the price of all products, but not products in particular? What is "natural price" measuring, then?
>>2805675That's a different anon. But I am the original anon you were talking to. Can you answer a question for once? How come when I write 3 paragraphs to you, you quote one sentence and ignore the rest, not even specifying whether you read it, agreed with it, or disagreed with it.
>>2805675idk man you tell us what you think
>>2805678>idkOkay, so like I said, you should have began with that.
I guess we're done here.
>>2805678So which was your last post, and do you know whether or not labour is "the main defining factor of the price of some product"?
>>2805684>presuming the anon who finally told you "idk" is the same anon you were talking to all alonghow convenient. so you aren't going to tell us what you think? you were just JAQing off all along and didn't care about the answers you got?
>>2805684"the main defining factor of the price of some product"
is a phrase you have used, curiously in quotes. who are you quoting? Like what is even your goal with this conversation? What position are you trying to get people to arrive at?
>>2805253anon can't say why the pic is wrong, only continue implying that natural price and market price are the same thing, which his misunderstanding hinges upon.
>>2805712I got an answer; all prices are determined by the total quantity of labour - but what then determines products in particular? That is not answered. If all prices added together equal all labour, then it is sufficient to see labour as "the main defining factor of the price of some product", no?
>>2805717>who are you quoting?You should know if you have been following the discussion.
>what is even your goal with this conversation?To get an explanation why labour either is or is not "the main defining factor of the price of some product". It was first answered "no", and "scarcity" was given as the cause, but then "scarcity" itself was given a cause in labour, yet this primary cause was not affirmed, and so we suffer this impotence to affirm the fact that labour is in fact "the main defining factor of the price of some product." Once this is admitted, the discussion can conclude.
>>2805754>You should know if you have been following the discussion.I have been. I never said "main defining factor of the price" it is a quote you use only .
>>2805754> so we suffer this impotence to affirm the fact that labour is in fact "the main defining factor of the price of some product." Once this is admitted, the discussion can conclude.because supply and demand cause price to deviate from value. marx was talking about value not price. you want to use the fact that prices deviate from value to prove marx wrong even though marx acknowledged prices deviate from values. that's the whole point of you deliberately confusing market and natural price and saying "price" in general and refusing to distinguish with them. because marx was talking about exploitation within the production process.
>>2805765>I never said "main defining factor of the price"I never claimed you did; but do you dispute it? If so, what is "the main defining factor of the price of some product", in fact? If it is scarcity, is scarcity caused by labour? If so, then is labour not "the main defining factor of the price of some product"?
>>2805193>Right, butyou have admitted i am right now the "discussion can conclude"
(this is how you talk to people)
>>2805779i dispute the fact that you aren't specifying what kind of price, and until I know what kind of price you want to know about, I can't tell what your game is. You won't say what your opinion is, you only ever JAQ off. At least try to give it to me like a flowchart
>if I say Xwhat does that prove
>if I say Ywhat does that prove
use branched reasoning here instead of waiting with bated breath for me to bite your bait which relies on failing to distinguish between market and natural price
>>2805779there are multiple kinds of price and multiple kinds of scarcity btw.
>>2805781>you have admitted i am rightSure, so does your statement "Scarcity just means it takes more labor to bring to market" then qualify the judgement that labour is "the main defining factor of the price of some product"?
>>2805773>marx was talking about value not priceSo would you simply prefer the statement that labour is "the main defining factor of the value of some product"?
>>2805785>>2805789There's nothing more to be said:
>>2805149>The final market price is defined by scarcity. But scarcity is just a term for how much labor time it takes on average to find something and bring it to marketWhat needs to be added, except a "yes"?
>>2805803>So would you simply prefer the statement that labour is "the main defining factor of the value of some product"?but it is. because value doesn't take supply and demand into account. value is just the value added in production. it is isolating the production process as an object of study. That's why if you ignore supply and demand, and just look at equilibrium prices, they are still different from one another, and the reason different commodities have different equilibrium prices is because they took different amounts of labor time, scarcity notwithstanding.
but again, "labor theory of value" is a misnomer. we are talking about a theory of socially necessary labor time within the sphere of production, not within the sphere of circulation.
>What needs to be added, except a "yes"?because market price isn't value AKA natural price AKA socially necessary labor time, which is why I don't simply say "yes"
>>2805824>but it isSo… yes?
>because market price isn't value AKA natural price AKA socially necessary labor time, which is why I don't simply say "yes"So if I write that labour is "the main defining factor of the natural price of some product", you agree?
>>2805844>So if I write that labour is "the main defining factor of the natural price of some product", you agree?yes, of course because you specified natural price. did you think I was arguing AGAINST marx this whole time?
>>2805856And natural price is the same as scarcity?
>>2805864no it's the price form of socially necessary labor time
>>2805870So scarcity has no relationship to natural price, and you would deny that "scarcity is just a term for how much labor time it takes on average to find something and bring it to market"?
>>2805885it's the price form of socially necessary labor time, which takes into account the scarcity of the raw materials, since scarcity effects the labor time required to acquire and transport raw materials, but scarcity itself isn't the only factor in the natural price, because there is also the labor of assembling a commodity from its raw materials in the production process. And even in the case of something simple like a raw material, it has to be refined, purified, weighed, put into packaging, etc. So the final commodity is not just the labor time resulting from the scarcity, but also the labor time of the rest of the production process.
>>2805675If I remember correctly, natural price is an abstraction borrowed from Adam Smith: Its what a product would be worth in labour time if it exchanged exactly for the labour time it took to produce it (including input materials & depreciation of capital stock) in a given place & time.
I was talking about market prices in general. Note though I am implicitly taking a tssi style interpretation of value theory. So there aren't necessarily equilibrium prices, just actual marlet prices at given times & places.
>>2805901>So the final commodity is not just the labor time resulting from the scarcity, but also the labor time of the rest of the production process.Right, so we're back at the same problem; since if labour is not "the main defining factor of the market price of some product", and scarcity is determined by labour, then neither labour or scarcity can explain anything. If supply and demand deviate from natural price, then what causes the different rates of supply and demand in relation to one another? What is the actual cause of market price?
>>2805918>neither labour or scarcity can explain anythingI don't follow your argument. your premise doesn't support this conclusion
>What is the actual cause of market price?supply and demand cause the market price, but when they cancel each other out you are left with a natural price which can only be the price form of the socially necessary labor time
>>2805906i am the other anon responding to him and I think equilibrium prices have to exist, because if take into account that different commodities have different equilibrium prices, you can only explain that with the production process. at which point bourgeois apologists are no longer able to use the market price as a cope to say labor is compensated exactly what it deserves
>>2805989Well in the TSSI framework, equilibrium is not assumed from the outset, it has to be shown to come about as a result of some kind of convergent convergent processes.
Ergo, prices of different commodities can change over time, and move with ranges or even diverge potentially. Movement of capital into & out of sectors (as well as potentially a tendency for profit rate equalization) among other things contribute to determining individual prices at given times & places.
Poor quality unfortunately, because the originals where taken down :(
>>2806029Thanks for the link, I'll check it out
notice that
>>2805088 responded to
>>2804144, and the author of
>>2804144 sought fit to redirect the author of
>>2805088 to
>>2804144 once again, because had no real counter to his own incorrect assertions being pointed out.
>>2806029Let me start with the video:
>Poor quality unfortunately, because the originals where taken down :(I finished watching this at the gym tonight. The audio and video quality was low, but I think I understood about 75% of it, and it has gotten my interest to look more into this. So, thank you for sharing.
>Well in the TSSI framework, equilibrium is not assumed from the outset, it has to be shown to come about as a result of some kind of convergent processes.Isn't that how averages work in general? Isn't socially necessary labor time an average emerging from convergent processes in the sphere of production? Same with equilibrium price.
<The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time.
<Capital Vol 1 Ch 1
>Ergo, prices of different commodities can change over time, and move with ranges or even diverge potentially. Movement of capital into & out of sectors (as well as potentially a tendency for profit rate equalization) among other things contribute to determining individual prices at given times & places.I don't see how that's necessarily mutually exclusive with the idea that the socially necessary labor time is identical to the equilibrium price.
>>2805987>I don't follow your argumentIts not my argument, its your argument. You are attempting to entirely disconnect market price from natural price; labour from scarcity, supply from demand. Thus, nothing is explained. What are supply and demand measured by? What is scarcity measured by?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/five1.htmEngels says explicitly that “with each epoch making discovery even in the sphere of natural science [“not to speak of the history of mankind”], materialism has to change its form” (Ludwig Feuerbach, Germ. ed., p. 19).[6] Hence, a revision of the “form” of Engels’ materialism, a revision of his natural-philosophical propositions is not only not “revisionism,” in the accepted meaning of the term, but, on the contrary, is demanded by Marxism. We criticise the Machians not for making such a revision, but for their purely revisionist trick of betraying the essence of materialism under the guise of criticising its form and of adopting the fundamental precepts of reactionary bourgeois philosophy without making the slightest attempt to deal directly, frankly and definitely with assertions of Engels’ which are unquestionably extremely important to the given question, as, for example, his assertion that “. . . motion without matter is unthinkable” (Anti-Dühring, p. 50).[7]
>>2806197>a revision of the “form” of Engels’ materialism, a revision of his natural-philosophical propositions is not only not “revisionism,” in the accepted meaning of the term, but, on the contrary, is demanded by Marxism
>We criticise the Machians not for making such a revision, but for their purely revisionist trick of betraying the essence of materialism under the guise of criticising its form So… revisions aren't revisionism, but "betraying the essence" is revisionism… so why is it even called revisionism if it has nothing to do with revision and everything to do with "betraying the essence"?
And
who has the authority how does one decide in practice whether something is
merely a necessary "revision of form" or a "revisionist" "betrayal of essence"?
>>2806416Well this depends on the situation since Lenin here is talking about betraying the essence of materialism but you can take any fundamental proposition of Marxism (proletarian dictatorship for example) and then betray its essence. What determines the correctness of a (scientific) revision? If the new theory is more sound than the previous one (has better predictability I'd say)
>>2806437>>2806197>>2806416It's all increasingly based on vibes, especially after Gorbachev killed the USSR. You've got people who call you revisionist if you don't want to speedrun a repeat of the 20th century. You've got people who call you revisionist if you don't "critically" (lol) or uncritically "support" (cheer for) every bourgeois regional power against whatever the latest depravity of burger imperialism is, even if the burgers brought that regional power into existence in the first place. We live in Stalin's "blackest reaction" and nobody is bold enough to do the necessary "revision of form" because they're afraid of being accused of a "revisionist betrayal of essence". You have billions of people who sympathize with communism, but regard each other with hostility and suspicion, and accuse each other of being anti communists, while the bourgeoisie are much more unified, even if not perfectly so. There are people who even on here will accuse you of "quote mining" and "taking Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin out of context" while at the same time never saying what the proper context is because they don't agree even with each other. There are people who are very eager to accuse everyone of being "revisionist" but even 1 day of dealing with the actual contradictions of wielding political power after seizing it would turn them "revisionist" in a heart beat. Instead of "What is to be done?" we have a million "What isn't to be done."
As for "predictability" that is usually decided in a lab theory for "normal" science but we are talking about "revolutionary" science here which is historically MUCH more rare.
>>2806442>As for "predictability" that is usually decided in a lab for "normal" science but we are talking about "revolutionary" science here which is historically MUCH more rare.meant to say lab setting* here. and by more rare i mean much smaller sample size to decide what ideas have actual predictive validity. and it's harder to isolate independent variables, especially when you have so many unique local conditions. Like the American and Haitian revolutions were both "bourgeois" revolutions but very very different from each other, for example.
>>2806138Ah I see the problem. Freeman deals with at one point in the video: In economics (both mainstream & marxian) equilibrium price is theoretically distinct from average price.
For example, in mainstream economics, the equilibrium price of a product is established by a constrained optimization problem (which is instantaneous).
The average price however is just an average of the market prices that prevailed over some period.
The socially necessary labour time on the other hand is the average labour required to produce a commodity in a given industry at a given time period. Its not a market price nor an equilibrium price in the neoclassical sense. Its measured in labour time and not in currency units.
That said even if you were to convert it into currency units using a monetary expression of labour time, it would still not necessarily equal the average market price nor even the abstract "equilibrium price'. This is so because market & equilibrium prices contain redistribute (labour) value across sectors due to a variety of factors (including potentially: profit rate equalization, differential rent, absolute rent, interest, royalties, taxes, subsidies, etc.)
>>2806507OK thank you for the answers. You are basically the only person on here I've gotten to answer questions like these in MONTHS. All this time I thought equilibrium price = price of the labor content of the finished commodity, while any market price that deviated from equilibrium price = knock-on effects of "the market" having nothing to do with the production process.
>>2806507SNLT still has to be transformed into a form of prices otherwise you're dealing with incomparable elements of society. The relative labor value differentials of bulk commodity goods should have strong correlation with their relative price differentials.
>>2805717>Like what is even your goal with this conversation?To ruin any productive conversation about Marxism.
>>2806537So this a bit of an issue of contention because you have things like differential rent, where the price (converted into labour time by a melt) will be far in excess of the snlt.
Still, you have a point: The instant a good is sold its labour content becomes equal to that of its price in labour time equivalent. If this were not so there would be a problem with the accpunt wherein the cost of production of firms downstream would not be made up of the actual cost of their intermediate inputs & fixed capital depreciation.
>>2806526You are welcome. I try my best with the limited knowledge I have (most of which is just undoing misconceptions & clarifying some basic concepts)
This place has deteriorated intellectually a bit over the years to be frank, though it was never an amazing bastion of theoretical discussion.
Unique IPs: 11