Marx's dialectic

294 posts / 0 new
Last post
ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Mar 8 2012 12:35

Hey! Watch it with the peasant-bashing beardy

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 8 2012 12:52

Jura:

Quote:
My point is that as long as someone buys it, it has to have one. Marx is very clear about this. Perhaps the old chair satisfies a need for historical furniture associated with certain aesthetic or other properties (as with antiques). Or someone's need for just something solid to sit on (as with old shit sold at flea markets). As long as it is brought to market and sold (becoming a commodity), it must have a use-value (for at least one person, regardless of whether they end up actually using it or find out it's useless), otherwise it wouldn't have found a buyer in the first place.

So, all the labour power congealed in that chair, which vanishes if it sys in that cellar, suddenly comes back, does it?

Even so, I asked what use value it has in that cellar, gathering dust -- not as it was being sold.

Quote:
Still curious about your take on immanent and external measure of value, BTW. While you're at it, maybe you can also explain what does "transformation" mean in the expression "The Transformation of the Value (and Respective Price) of Labour-Power into Wages" (without recourse to Hegelian terminology, of course).

Just as I am still curious about your expert take on the connection between the disjunctive and the conjunctive normal forms in the propositional calculus.

Quote:
After all, the burden of proof seems to be on you: You seem to be arguing (contrary to all tradition, which includes, I admit, a lot of bullshit) that Marx's analysis of capitalism can be understood without any recourse to Hegel. Maybe instead of endless polemics you could write a "positive" interpretation of Marx's theory to prove that Hegel's categories have nothing to do with Marx's. Until then, my doubts about your understanding of Marx's actual theory remain.

Not so. I have shown that Marx abandoned Hegel -- on his say, so, not mine. The burden is therefore on you to show I'm wrong.

And, I'm still waiting for you to tell me where my work has been 'peer reviewed'.

After all, that's the only reason you said you'd 'talk' to me...

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 8 2012 12:56

SA:

Quote:
What a display of ignorance. The chair that is stored in a cellar may have been produced in a factory, or it may have been produced by a craftsman working in a guild-type arrangement, or it may have been home-produced for home use. In any and all cases, in the first two cases it was produced as a in order to claim, receive an exchange value; it was produced for the purpose of exchange. Such purpose can only be realized if the chair has a use.

[Still feeding the 'trolls' I see.]

Where did I deny this?

The question is what use value has it got in a cellar, gathering dust, and forgotten about?

Maybe this: to annoy SA?

You seem to want to duck that question -- or raise side issues that have nothing to do with what I asked

Quote:
That our troll...

Only 999,995 to go...

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Mar 8 2012 13:07
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
So, all the labour power congealed in that chair, which vanishes if it sys in that cellar, suddenly comes back, does it?

Now you're asking about value, which has nothing to do with the present problem. Even things that don't have value can be use-values. Even things that are not products of any labor can be use-values. For how much that chair is going to be sold at an antiques auction or at the flea market is irrelevant. You said (in your writings) that some commodities namely antiques, don't have use-value. I'm saying it's nonsense.

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
Even so, I asked what use value it has in that cellar, gathering dust -- not as it was being sold.

I see, evading the problem. Anyway, it depends. It can be stored away as a memory of someone's old times as the chairman of the SWP. It can be stored away due to lack of space. You know, whether a thing has a use-value or not is a different question than whether this use-value is being realized in consumption (as long as the thing is not destroyed or does not decay). But remember: you said this (notice the lack of cellars and dust in the paragraph):

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
Can't exchange values exist where there is no use value at all? What about antiques? They seem to have an exchange value but many do not have a use value. Same with many works of art and other collectables (such as stamps and old coins).

You're saying something which has (exchange) value does not have to have use-value. Utter nonsense!

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
Just as I am still curious about your expert take on the connection between the disjunctive and the conjunctive normal forms in the propositional calculus.

Well, I gave a simple definition above. Even if it's not entirely correct (I notice that I forgot to add "atomic formulae or their negations"), I tried. I think it's your turn now with immanent and external measures of value. Can you come up with something at least as workable as my understanding of CNF and DNF?

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
And, I'm still waiting for you to tell me where my work has been 'peer reviewed'.

We'll never know. Negative results of peer reviews are generally not publicized.

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
After all, that's the only reason you said you'd 'talk' to me...

As I said, I'll give it a few more shots – your evasiveness is becoming more and more ridiculous.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Mar 8 2012 13:59

BTW, I was wondering who was the nutter that Rosa reminded me of. Look what I've found: http:// www.socialiststeve.me.uk/rosa.htm (My apologies, I wasn't aware of what Android points out below. I certainly didn't mean to poke fun at people who, unlike Rosa, are not trolls, but have health issues.)

Android
Offline
Joined: 7-07-08
Mar 8 2012 13:53
jura wrote:
BTW, I was wondering who was the nutter that Rosa reminded me of. Look what I've found: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk/rosa.htm

If I am not mistaken the guy in question has mental problems. You weren't to know that with your above comment which was obviously prompted by Rosa's evasive approach to debate on here.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 8 2012 17:13

Jura:

Quote:
Now you're asking about value, which has nothing to do with the present problem. Even things that don't have value can be use-values. Even things that are not products of any labor can be use-values. For how much that chair is going to be sold at an antiques auction or at the flea market is irrelevant. You said (in your writings) that some commodities namely antiques, don't have use-value. I'm saying it's nonsense.

But, I thought all things were interconnected in that quirky dialectical universe of yours?

So, what is the use value of an antique chair, in a cellar, forgotten about and gathering dust?

Maybe this: to get you to ignore the question?

Quote:
I see, evading the problem.

Not at all, I asked this question several posts ago,and am still waiting for an answer.

Quote:
Anyway, it depends. It can be stored away as a memory of someone's old times as the chairman of the SWP. It can be stored away due to lack of space. You know, whether a thing has a use-value or not is a different question than whether this use-value is being realized in consumption (as long as the thing is not destroyed or does not decay). But remember: you said this (notice the lack of cellars and dust in the paragraph):

Sure, but that wasn't my example, it's yours.

If you don't like, and can't answer, that one, try this:

What is the use value of an antique chair, washed up on a desert island, hidden under tons of sand?

Quote:
You're saying something which has (exchange) value does not have to have use-value. Utter nonsense!

Not nonsense at all. If it were, you'd not be able to understand it. It may be false but that's another matter.

Imagine this scenario:

An antique dealer buys a house with its contents, and pays $1,000,000 for it. In the cellar (which she never visits) there is an antique chair, forgotten about, and gathering dust. Ten years later, after still not visiting the cellar, she sells the house and contents for $1,500,000. The new owner, a fan of Hegel, also never goes into that cellar. Ten years later, the house burns down, and all the contents are destroyed.

So, the chair has an exchange value (part of the $2,500,000), but no use value (before it was burnt).

Plenty more examples like that to keep you busy...

What about this?

Quote:
Well, I gave a simple definition above. Even if it's not entirely correct (I notice that I forgot to add "atomic formulae or their negations"), I tried. I think it's your turn now with immanent and external measures of value. Can you come up with something at least as workable as my understanding of CNF and DNF?

Sorry, I didn't see it.

Here it is:

Quote:
Both are types of formulae to which all formulae of the propositonal calculus can be transformed via rules of equivalence. The first one is a conjunction of disjunctions of atomic formulae, the second one is a disjunction of conjunctions of atomic formulae.

Well done.

Quote:
I think it's your turn now with immanent and external measures of value. Can you come up with something at least as workable as my understanding of CNF and DNF?

No.

Quote:
We'll never know. Negative results of peer reviews are generally not publicized.

So, when you said you would 'talk' to me when my work had been peer reviewed, were you lying?

Quote:
BTW, I was wondering who was the nutter that Rosa reminded me of. Look what I've found: http:// www.socialiststeve.me.uk/rosa.htm (My apologies, I wasn't aware of what Android points out below. I certainly didn't mean to poke fun at people who, unlike Rosa, are not trolls, but have health issues.)

Well done again. Nearly everyone I have debated dialectics with on the internet over the last three or four years has managed to find this link using google, etc.

Until they realise, or are told, he has mental health problems they happily throw it in my direction, and then have to beat a hasty and embarrassed retreat when that is pointed out to them.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 8 2012 17:10

Android;

Quote:
You weren't to know that with your above comment which was obviously prompted by Rosa's evasive approach to debate on here.

In what way am I 'evasive'?

Android
Offline
Joined: 7-07-08
Mar 8 2012 17:22

Rosa, I wont be entering into a dialogue with you.

jolasmo
Offline
Joined: 25-12-11
Mar 8 2012 22:26

Rosa, do you ever find a bit of saliva sort of froths up around the corners of your mouth while you type?

~J.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Mar 9 2012 00:51
worst scenario ever wrote:
An antique dealer buys a house with its contents, and pays $1,000,000 for it. In the cellar (which she never visits) there is an antique chair, forgotten about, and gathering dust. Ten years later, after still not visiting the cellar, she sells the house and contents for $1,500,000. The new owner, a fan of Hegel, also never goes into that cellar. Ten years later, the house burns down, and all the contents are destroyed.

So, the chair has an exchange value (part of the $2,500,000), but no use value (before it was burnt).

Plenty more examples like that to keep you busy...

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Mar 9 2012 01:04

Rosa, I take it you don't have anything interesting to say about the two concepts Marx uses when explaining the relation of socially necessary time and money, namely immanent and external measure (in Zur Kritik of 1859). If your interpretation of Marx's method is far superior (as you imply) to the Hegel-influenced tradition, you should be able to come up with at least something. Your understanding of the relationship of use-value and (exchange) value is wrong, too. I'm sorry, but I've lost any credibility I may have had in your knowledge of Marx's work.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 9 2012 03:09
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
SA:
Quote:
What a display of ignorance. The chair that is stored in a cellar may have been produced in a factory, or it may have been produced by a craftsman working in a guild-type arrangement, or it may have been home-produced for home use. In any and all cases, in the first two cases it was produced as a in order to claim, receive an exchange value; it was produced for the purpose of exchange. Such purpose can only be realized if the chair has a use.

[Still feeding the 'trolls' I see.]

Where did I deny this?

The question is what use value has it got in a cellar, gathering dust, and forgotten about?

Maybe this: to annoy SA?

You seem to want to duck that question -- or raise side issues that have nothing to do with what I asked

Quote:
That our troll...

Only 999,995 to go...

You are so completely ignorant. Clearly you never bothered to read the 1st volume of Capital, or at least beyond the afterward to the 2nd edition.

Whether it sits in a cellar, or on the floor of the NYSE, or in the National Academy of Design, it's still a chair. Whether the queen's bum graces it or it is used simply as a place to stack old magazines, or it's forgotten about completely, it's a chair with a use value.

The question is in the transformation, the expression of the use value as an exchange value-- in the chair establishing itself as [i]an object that can command labor, or the expression of labor as it exists in all other objects, as value.

Does scrap metal sitting in a junkyard have use value? Of course it does, even if it is not being consumed at the moment. Does a 1958 Chevrolet Corvette have a use value? Of course it does. Even if it sits in its owners garage and he only looks at it on national holidays? Yes, even then.

You've claimed antiques have an exchange value without a use value. Clearly you're the one who thinks Marx was an imbecile to point out that the commodity must have a use value to carry, circulate, forward the value the capitalist seeks to realize from its exchange. Even without realizing that value, however, the commodity still retains its use value.

Do the fleets of jets stored in the desert due to the downturn in 2008 still have a use value? Of course they do. Does the 10% of the world's maritime capacity currently at anchor have a use value? Of course those ships have a use-value; but that utility can only be expressed under certain economic conditions-- when a profit can be had.

This is why Marx refers to the contradiction between use-value and exchange value; at some point the production of one, which is the production of the other, negates the impulse, and the ability, for the accumulation of capital.

I'd like to thank you for exposing the full range of your ignorance regarding Marx's critique of capital.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 9 2012 05:13

Jolasmo:

Quote:
Rosa, do you ever find a bit of saliva sort of froths up around the corners of your mouth while you type?

Alas, only when I copy you... sad

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 9 2012 05:14

Android:

Quote:
Rosa, I wont be entering into a dialogue with you.

Oh dear, how will I get over that body blow?

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 9 2012 05:24

Tell us again Rosa why chairs not being directly and continuously sat upon have no use value.

According to you, every night when the lights are turned out, and people are in bed, the chairs in the dark have no use value. And in the day when people awake? Then the beds have no use value, clearly.

Dunce. or Ignoramus. or both.

This:

Quote:
So, all the labour power congealed in that chair, which vanishes if it sys in that cellar, suddenly comes back, does it?

is absolutely priceless.

Our "demystifier" doesn't even know the difference between use value and exchange value and value.

The labor power involved in producing the chair is not a measure of the chair's utility. The use value of the chair is not a measure of the socially necessary labor time required to reproduce the chair.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 9 2012 05:16

Khawaga:

Quote:
worst scenario ever wrote:

An antique dealer buys a house with its contents, and pays $1,000,000 for it. In the cellar (which she never visits) there is an antique chair, forgotten about, and gathering dust. Ten years later, after still not visiting the cellar, she sells the house and contents for $1,500,000. The new owner, a fan of Hegel, also never goes into that cellar. Ten years later, the house burns down, and all the contents are destroyed.

So, the chair has an exchange value (part of the $2,500,000), but no use value (before it was burnt).

Plenty more examples like that to keep you busy...

But only because it blows apart Jura's 'reply' to me. smile

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 9 2012 05:21

Jura:

Quote:
Rosa, I take it you don't have anything interesting to say about the two concepts Marx uses when explaining the relation of socially necessary time and money, namely immanent and external measure (in Zur Kritik of 1859). If your interpretation of Marx's method is far superior (as you imply) to the Hegel-influenced tradition, you should be able to come up with at least something. Your understanding of the relationship of use-value and (exchange) value is wrong, too. I'm sorry, but I've lost any credibility I may have had in your knowledge of Marx's work.

I have loads to say about it, but not to you.

Quote:
Your understanding of the relationship of use-value and (exchange) value is wrong, too. I'm sorry, but I've lost any credibility I may have had in your knowledge of Marx's work.

Oh dear, how on earth will I cope... sad

Quote:
If your interpretation of Marx's method is far superior (as you imply) to the Hegel-influenced tradition, you should be able to come up with at least something.

No need to, Marx has already done it, and without a single confused Hegelian concept anywhere in sight -- according to him, not me.

[See the Afterword, where..., er, you can fill in the rest yourself.]

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 9 2012 05:35

SA:

Quote:
You are so completely ignorant. Clearly you never bothered to read the 1st volume of Capital, or at least beyond the afterward to the 2nd edition.

Can't resist feeding the 'trolls', eh?

Quote:
Whether it sits in a cellar, or on the floor of the NYSE, or in the National Academy of Design, it's still a chair. Whether the queen's bum graces it or it is used simply as a place to stack old magazines, or it's forgotten about completely, it's a chair with a use value.

From this it seems that it's not the object itself, but the intention to treat something as a chair that gives it a use value.

In that case, if the chair in question has been forgotten about, locked away in that cellar, so that no one knows it's there and can thus form no intention toward it, it has no use value.

In which case, you agree with me!

If so, that means these pleasant, non-dialectical words apply to you, too:

Quote:
You are so completely ignorant.

Alas, the rest of what you say, fascinating though it was, does not seem to address my point.

But thanks for sharing. smile

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 9 2012 05:43

SA:

Quote:
Tell us again Rosa why chairs not being directly and continuously sat upon have no use value.

'Troll' feeding time...

You know, you are just going to have to work some things out for yourself. You can't expect me to solve all your problems for you.

Quote:
According to you, every night when the lights are turned out, and people are in bed, the chairs in the dark have no use value. And in the day when people awake? Then the beds have no use value, clearly.

In fact, that's a consequence of your 'theory', not mine.

Quote:
Dunce. or Ignoramus. or both.

Well, if I am forced to choose -- I think both apply to you -- but couldn't you work that out for yourself?

Quote:
is absolutely priceless.

In which case, it has a use value, but no exchange value.

Quote:
Our "demystifier" doesn't even know the difference between use value and exchange value and value.

So you say, but you can't even get 'contradiction' right.

Quote:
The labor power involved in producing the chair is not a measure of the chair's utility. The use value of the chair is not a measure of the socially necessary labor time required to reproduce the chair.

Where did I deny this?

Kambing
Offline
Joined: 18-03-09
Mar 9 2012 08:16
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
what is the 'use value' of an antique chair, stored in a cellar, which everyone has forgotten about?
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
In fact, your 'theory' implies that objects have a use value only if someone or other thinks about them.

OK, I'm going to agree with you that it doesn't really make sense to talk about the 'use-value' for an object that no people are relating to in any way, but nor does it make any sense to talk about such objects having 'exchange value' or any other sort of value for that matter. ‘Value’ is not a static quality of an object, but refers to the social relations in which an object is embedded. So without people 'relating' to the objects in some fashion, they do not have value. Furthermore, the value categories and relationships that Marx establishes in Capital refer specifically to the social relations of generalised commodity production, so they have relatively little utility with respect to objects that are not mediating the capital-labour relation.

'Use-value' loses most of its utility as a coherent category if you are talking about an object outside of a market relation—it is really more of a catch-all category for all the various qualitative ways that people relate to objects (or to other people through objects), which really only has analytical applicability in distinction from (and as a necessary precondition for) 'exchange-value', in the context of market exchange.

I think that the way you have framed your discussion on value demonstrates that if you attempt to remove the dialectical logic from Marx’s concepts of value (value as a dynamic, contradictory social relation) you evacuate those concepts of their useful meaning.

yourmum
Offline
Joined: 9-03-10
Mar 9 2012 08:53
Quote:
Can't exchange values exist where there is no use value at all? What about antiques? They seem to have an exchange value but many do not have a use value

no. the exchange value is a SUBCLASS of use value, therefor all exchange values are use values. the exchange value itself is a special form of use value. saying antiques have no use value is the same as saying someone should hang dollar bills on his wall. obviously there is more to an antique then its exchange value. the interesting thing about antiques is rather if they have an exchange value or only a PRICE.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 9 2012 08:54

Kambing, I largely agree with what you say, but I'm not too sure about this:

Quote:
I think that the way you have framed your discussion on value demonstrates that if you attempt to remove the dialectical logic from Marx’s concepts of value (value as a dynamic, contradictory social relation) you evacuate those concepts of their useful meaning.

Well, I deny these relations are 'contradictory', to begin with, and I don't see how dialectics helps in any way at all. Indeed, I argue that it gets in the way, mystifying Marx's work for no gain at all.

After all, you tried, largely successfully, to explain yourself in the first two paragraphs of your reply without any dialectics at all (except perhaps that vague reference to 'mediating').

And there is no need to use 'dialectics', either, since, as I have shown, Marx abandoned this way of looking at things in Das Kapital.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 9 2012 09:02

Yourmum:

Quote:
no. the exchange value is a SUBCLASS of use value, therefor all exchange values are use values. the exchange value itself is a special form of use value. saying antiques have no use value is the same as saying someone should hang dollar bills on his wall. obviously there is more to an antique then its exchange value. the interesting thing about antiques is rather if they have an exchange value or only a PRICE.

Oh dear yet another 'explanation' (which doesn't appear to be consistent with the many others that have been offered here)!

Even so, in an earlier post, I gave an example of an exchange value which isn't a use value. You appaer to have missed it.

And I am not sure you got the point I was trying to make about antiques. [See my other post for more details.]

But, let's suppose you are right. How can 'all exchange values be use values'? If they are supposed to 'contradict' one another, they must be distinct, surely?

yourmum
Offline
Joined: 9-03-10
Mar 9 2012 09:02

whats a subclass?

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 9 2012 09:13

Yourmum:

Quote:
whats a subclass?

I don't think I used that term.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Mar 9 2012 09:13
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
I have loads to say about it, but not to you.

Kind of sums it up I guess grin.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 9 2012 09:14

Jura, sharp a usual:

Quote:
Kind of sums it up I guess

Not much gets past you, eh?

Malva's picture
Malva
Offline
Joined: 22-03-11
Mar 9 2012 09:17

yourmum
Offline
Joined: 9-03-10
Mar 9 2012 09:17
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
Yourmum:
Quote:
whats a subclass?

I don't think I used that term.

oh really, but i did. i was just checking if you even tried to understand what i said or just be trolling away ur boredom. the answer to your question (are they distinct) is the answer to what is a subclass.