Discussion in 'protest, direct action and demos' started by Alfredo, Mar 30, 2012.
Where's revol68 he would be a useful addition at this stage?
I'm still curious as to how beef and potatoes have intrinsic value.
I'm not a free marketeer, but I suspect that people who don't own property would be in very much the same position that they're in today.
I'm amazed that rich people don't pay much tax.
So there's yer answer.
George? Is that you? Would explain a lot!
the simple bare necessities?
Do you actually think I'm right wing because I don't agree with a half-baked description of an ideology associated with anti-semitism, deliberate starvation, torture and murder? You haven't explained this economic philosophy in any sort of detail at all. The only description I've seen so far is a vague, purple rhetoric which could be applied to any theory of economy in history, including monetarism and fascism.
I'm afraid you haven't been very convincing.
I'm still waiting for an explanation of how potatoes and beef have intrinsic value.
Merely stating it is not very convincing.
Eat them and you'll see.
I'm not the one attempting to explain an economic philosophy btw, that appears to be you.
Some interesting issues here . I too , as a socialist though, can see a function for some "market mechanisms" in a non exploitative social system, to deliver flexibility and innovation to an economic system . But as I said, For me that overall system would be a socialist one , in which the key , large, industries were socially owned and controlled - and money circulation to provide for resource allocation flexibility was handled by state owned banks, within a system of overall , flexible PLANNING. For the overall system to be "non-exploitative" however requires that there is no classical OR state "capitalist class" in the picture, with power derived from ownership and control of great blocks of capital, ie, that the state is a democratically run "worker's state", after the capitalist class has been expropriated.
Without a socialist state form under workers control , shaping and limiting market relations and capital accumulation, how can any free"market" situation in which there are EMPLOYERS and EMPLOYEES, avoid a situation where surplus value is extracted , to the benefit of the employer.. the CAPITALIST ? I would suggest there IS something intrinsically "capitalistic" about , non-barter-based, markets ,and money use - even when operating in a feudal or slave based system . In a modern economy the very existence of a very highly developed division of labour, with complex markets and money mechanisms , and the existence of employer and employed establishes automatically both "capitalism" and EXPLOITATION, without a bigger societal framework of social ownership and control.
So how do you propose to "keep the 'state, markets and money' and get rid of wage labour/exploitation of labour," in terms of the bigger social framework ? Without this clearly explained bigger picture your "non-exploitative market" is highly reminiscent of William Morris type utopianism common during the early years of capitalist development - which of course proved no solution to capitalist exploitation at all.
The title of this thread is "Why we need communism". Are you in agreement with the premise of this statement?
Breaking my ignoring of you for a moment -
And if I have a surfeit of potatoes and don't want to eat them and can't give them away?
Which is entirely the point - they only have a value in particular circumstances. This is basic Marx. Another reason I think you're a troll/fraud.
getting things done
it should be 'why we need girlfriends'
Post of the day.
I can smell the formica & misery from here.
Did I start this thread?
No. They have use-value in themselves, inherently. They have exchange-value when they are exchanged for something else.
This isn't very difficult to grasp.
Well you've certainly crushed THAT argument with your closely argued and knowledgable polemic sonny. Next a 10 word demolition of the theory of Relativity ? You are a master of debate indeedy.
I know what he was alluding to, however he was using the wrong thing to try and make the distinction
No more is the essence of a use value found in an object in and off itself, as the essence of (exchange) value is found within a commodity
As has been stated previously both use value & exchange value are relational concepts - the exchange value/use value lies within the relation between people/things, not within things in and off themselves
This may be your view and you are of course entitled to it, however it's not one I adhere to, and i'm afraid once again Marx would side with me rather than you on this one - as he clearly sees the concept of use value as a relational one (just like exchange value) and also one that is not necessarily material. Here's a range of quotes from him on the topic spread across a number of his works:-
The first sentence is correct and there is no argument between anyone on this - the second is incorrect however. It is too a relational concept, one where the utility lies in the relation between things, not within the thing itself. And it is also not necessary a material one as you imply above. Love for example has utility for most people but can i kick it?
eating a potato no more shows that the essence of its utility lies within a thing in and off itself, than spending a tenner in a shop and getting something you want for it shows that the essence of value lies within money in and off itself
your reply about having to eat it though actually makes the point i've been making all along which is that use value, just like exchange value, is a relational concept - the essence of a use value is found in the relation between things/people not in a thing in and off itself
I bloody wish I could.
Obviously use-values are only useful for people, and in that sense I suppose you could say that they are "relational." But unlike exchange-value, use-values are not relational with regard to other values. The use-value of an object most certainly is inherent in the object. Indeed the physical presence of the object is necessary for its use-value to be realized. You cannot use anything unless it is present.
Exchange-value, in contrast, is produced by the absence of the valued object.
Food and water don't depend on the presence of a second or third party for their value.
Spending money in the shop shows that the use-value of the money lies within it, as all use-values do.
Except they don't have use value in and of themselves. If I don't want potatoes, they have no use value to me.
Read the definition of intrinsic again.
All you're both doing (R_L & pd) is proving that value is relational. It's funny really.
Yes you can, being the obvious answer.
Separate names with a comma.