Dialectics

302 posts / 0 new
Last post
S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 10 2012 22:07

The whole point is the specificity, the historical/social conditions that determine "free vs. unfree." We're not talking about moral qualities here but mechanisms, relations of labor to the means of production.

Marx is very explicit in his economic manuscripts that the freedom of "free labor" is created by the necessity, the compulsion to present one's ability to labor as an exchangeable commodity in order to obtain the means of subsistence of the equivalent thereof.

That does not change the fact that laborer exists, in the "paradigm," as a member of the class of free laborers.

We are not talking about cut little word games regarding free and unfree, we are talking about the organization of labor for the disposition and distribution of labor time.

Be that as it may, I'd still like to know if you think Marx eliminated his "Hegelianism" with the publication of vol. 1.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Mar 11 2012 00:09
Quote:
That does not change the fact that laborer exists, in the "paradigm," as a member of the class of free laborers.

We are not talking about cut little word games regarding free and unfree, we are talking about the organization of labor for the disposition and distribution of labor time.

you are playing cute word games yourself. "the class of free laborers," as understood in this context, are those laborers who are not chattels or serfs and are free in respect of leaving an employer in search of another. that is only one respect in which they are free. laborers can be free with respect to one possible form of control or constraint and yet not free full stop within the mode of production. it's like the well know comic where a skyjacker aims his pistol at a pilot and says "Take me to a free country." and the pilot responds, "This is a jumbo jet, not a rocket ship, mate."

as to the question about Marx's Hegelianism, i've not offered an opinion on that. seems you're confusing me with RL. i do think the worthwhile or defensible elements in M's theories can be restated without any dialectics claptrap.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 11 2012 01:31

SA::

Quote:
Your refusal to engage with the substantive questions regarding your primary assertion that Marx extirpated Hegel sometime between 1857 and 1867 stand as its own critique of that assertion.

Ok, let's say for the sake of argument that you are 100% right about 'the dialectic' in Das Kapital: what then is both your and Marx's justification for using the word 'contradiction' in the way you say he did?

It's either (1) because Hegel used it, and Marx was merely appropriating its 'rational', as opposed to its idealist, use, or (2) because of some other reason.

If it's option 1), then I have demolished this 'rational' use -- indeed, as I actually demonstrated to you over at RevLeft, to which you had, and now have, no reply.

If it's 2), then you won't mind sharing it with us, since it will at least have the not inconsiderable merit of shutting me up.

Recall: I raised this issue here since you claimed you had effectively answered this question over at RevLeft, whereas I alleged you had consistently ducked it.

Now is your chance to put me in my place: other than merely copying Marx, and failing to justify his odd use of this word, what reason have you for using 'contradiction' in this way?.

Otherwise the good folk here will begin to suspect I was right: you were and are ducking this question.

Just as you are ducking the trap (concerning use value) I set for you in that other thread.

-------------------------

And we're still waiting for the proof that my 'logic' is as you say it is.

Or, are you content not to defend yourself, and thus remain a confirmed liar?

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 11 2012 05:31

Answer the questions about the supposed transformation Marx's methodology undergoes between 1857 and 1867.

Synidicalistcat: It's too bad that you can't grasp the historical determinants of the freedom of free labor, which is its detachment, expulsion from ownership of the means of subsistence; a process capital recreates in every step of its expansion.

That's your problem, not mine, and certainly not Marx's.

As for explaining capitalism without "dialectic claptrap"--- no doubt... no doubt you can explain how and why capitalist accumulation encumbers capital accumulation; how and why use value can be expressed in the exchange value of commodities; how the opposition of labor and the conditions of labor develops in capitalism; why, at a certain point, the labor process and the valuation process, which are one and the same under capitalism, become antagonists, with the labor process undermining the valuation process; how the intensity of the exploitation of labor in capitalizing values becomes the inability of capital to exploit labor with sufficient intensity to capitalize the expanded values... all that stuff can be explained without Hegelian terminology... but all those things are exactly what Marx considered to be the contradictions, the self-contradictions of capital, leading to its breakdown as it creates the agency, and the material conditions for its own abolition. Don't need a bit of Hegel to say that.... except that in saying that we are talking exactly about Marx's "rational kernel" to the dialectic.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Mar 11 2012 06:58

SA: if all that you deem important in M's work...and your selection doesn't coincide exactly with mine...can be explained without the language of Hegelian dialectics, nothing is added by using it, except obfuscation.

Quote:
but all those things are exactly what Marx considered to be the contradictions, the self-contradictions of capital, leading to its breakdown as it creates the agency, and the material conditions for its own abolition.

thinking that somehow one can deduce the foreordained collapse of capitalism and its replacement solely by analyzing capitalism itself is an example of the sort of apriorist, determinist interpretation of Marxism that I think we need to avoid.

the pertinent replacement is one where labor does become actually free, and this depends on the development of self-activity, self-organization of the working class and the kinds of development in consciousness & confidence that grow out of increased counter-power of the class.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 11 2012 13:17

I didn't say "collapse," I said "breakdown," and that's no word game.

Apprehending, and apprehension is a material, practical activity with Marx, why and how the very process that creates and sustains capital leads to the impairment, obstruction, "breakdown" of capitalist accumulation may be a "determinist" interpretation of Marx, or application of historical materialism-- but that, again isn't the point.

The point is: is it accurate; does it actually apprehend the reproduction of capital; does it actually identify the agent, the means, the prospects for the overthrow of capitalism?

Now if somebody thinks that Marx's explication of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is NOT, consciously on Marx's part, a demonstration by Marx of Hegel's notion of the transformation of quantity into quality, that's quite all right with me.

If, however, one says that the accumulation of the means as production as capital thereby intensifying the exploitation of wage labor is not, at one and the same time:

1. essential to the expansion of value production
2. the source of increasing profitability of capital
3. the mechanism by which the proletariat reproduces itself as proletariat and the bourgeoisie as bourgeoisie
4. the source for the decreasing profitability of capital
5. the source for the contraction of value production
6. the mechanism by which the proletariat can overthrow the bourgeoisie
7. the condition of labor that confronts the laborers as an opposition

that's not ok with me.

You don't want to use the words "negation" "dialectic" "contradiction" when providing a Marxist critique of say the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis? That's fine. I never use the words negation, dialectic, contradiction when writing about the Eurozone debt crisis.... but negation, contradiction,etc. as Marx developed and employed those categories in his critique of capital is in fact the scaffold upon which a concrete, accurate, critique of the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis hangs, is constructed, is possible. And.. necessary.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Mar 11 2012 19:47
Quote:
If, however, one says that the accumulation of the means as production as capital thereby intensifying the exploitation of wage labor is not, at one and the same time:

1. essential to the expansion of value production
2. the source of increasing profitability of capital
3. the mechanism by which the proletariat reproduces itself as proletariat and the bourgeoisie as bourgeoisie
4. the source for the decreasing profitability of capital
5. the source for the contraction of value production
6. the mechanism by which the proletariat can overthrow the bourgeoisie
7. the condition of labor that confronts the laborers as an opposition

that's not ok with me.

I wouldn't use this language and don't agree with all those things. Things that have value to people are produced under a variety of modes of production and will be when capitalism is replaced by socialism. Profits are possible within capitalism only because of the subordinate class position of the working class, thus making their exploitation possible, and thus the exploitation of labor is the source of profits.

now, of course, by '"value" you might mean exchange value or revenue scarfed down by a "residual claimant", which drives the constant push for accrual of surpluses. and, yeah, we want to get rid of that.

This social relationship of production between capital and labor produces not only commodities but also reproduces those social relations of production, and thus the classes in that relationship, so i agree with 3.

This is not the "mechanism" by which the proletariat can overthrow the bourgeoisie. That is the struggle between capital and labor itself, that is, the resistance of the working class, and their development of their social counter-power outside the institutions of the system, and the development of their counter-consciousness in the course of doing so -- this is the "mechanism" (not a good word for it) through which the working class can throw the dominating classes off their back. The meaning of 7 is not clear.

Because I don't accept the LTV anymore I'm also agnostic about the theory of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and am not impressed by Andrew Kliman's attempt to refute the Japanese Marxist Okishio's refutation of that theory.

I can sort of see the point to LTV since labor is the primary cost of production and costs of production form a floor for prices. but the capitalist is concerned with the price of labor, and so i'm not convinced about the labor-time accounting scheme M. uses, especially so as not all hours of work are remunerated the same, and the LTV assumes a simplified scheme where the bureaucratic control class disappear. the only relevant factor in prices under this simplification is the class domination of the capitalists over labor. but this is an over-simplification because there are other kinds of power operative in markets. i understand that M. wanted to separate the sphere of production from realization of the social (exchange) value of commodities. and this realization is affected by things like market power of firms and externalities.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 12 2012 00:47

SA:

Quote:
Answer the questions about the supposed transformation Marx's methodology undergoes between 1857 and 1867.

Ducked yet another question you can't answer, eh?

But you offer us this:

Quote:
You don't want to use the words "negation" "dialectic" "contradiction" when providing a Marxist critique of say the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis? That's fine. I never use the words negation, dialectic, contradiction when writing about the Eurozone debt crisis.... but negation, contradiction,etc. as Marx developed and employed those categories in his critique of capital is in fact the scaffold upon which a concrete, accurate, critique of the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis hangs, is constructed, is possible. And.. necessary.

In other words, you are just copying tradition, as I said. You can't justify your use of 'contradcition' in any other way.

No worries, I'll just quote this page back at you when you try to con the good people here, or elsewhere, with your lies 1) About my logic, and 2) About whether you have answered my questions.

But, what about this?

Quote:
Answer the questions about the supposed transformation Marx's methodology undergoes between 1857 and 1867.

We can speculate all day long about this, but one thing we can't speculate about is the passage Marx saw fit to publish in the Afterword, which he, not me, endorsed as 'the dialectic method'.

And, guess what?

It contains not one atom of Hegel, his ideas, or his method.

So, whatever else happened to Marx's thought between the Grundrisse (which he chose not to publish, and we can now see why) and Das Kapital, it meant he had finally decided to extirpate Hegel from his thought.

Too bad you refuse to emulate him.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 12 2012 03:28

So are the first 3 chapters of vol 1 "mystifying" or demystification of value?

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 12 2012 07:04

SA:

Quote:
So are the first 3 chapters of vol 1 "mystifying" or demystification of value?

Still ducking the question you can't answer, eh?

In reply to yours:

1) According to Marx, no me , he was merely 'coquetting' with Hegelian jargon. So, no mystification there, to begin with.

2) You are the one trying to mystify things with that Hegelian jargon of yours -- which, as we can now see, you are only employing because of tradition, since it's plain you can't explain why you use 'contradiction', for instance, except you appeal to what you claim Marx is doing with it.

Your delaying tactics merely serve to confirm this.

3) As we can also see from that other thread, you are struggling with use value, too!

But, and once more: let's assume you are 100% right about Marx -- in that case, other than merely copying his use of 'contradiction', what is your justification for using it?

Your prevarication above, in your last few posts, suggests I am right: you have no good reason for using this word other than tradition.

If you continue to prevaricate, as I predict you will (as you did at RevLeft, at RedMarx and at Louis Proyect's site) the good folk here will soon begin to agree with me: you are full of hot air.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 12 2012 12:17

Except the good folk at Revleft, RedMarx, and Proyect's Marxmail did not agree with you. They agreed with me and banned you, as Libcom should, for being a troll, and pathologically so.

I'm ducking no question-- I accept Marx's definition as a use-value satisfying human want, need, desire-- whether it be of subsistence or fancy. If you have a problem with that, go pick a fight with Marx, not me, as you love to say.

Still looking for your explanation as to how an antique can have an exchange value without a use value; and how the "unknown" chair has an exchange value but not a use value, thereby making knowledge of the specific object the generator of its use value.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 12 2012 20:57

SA:

Quote:
Except the good folk at Revleft, RedMarx, and Proyect's Marxmail did not agree with you. They agreed with me and banned you, as Libcom should, for being a troll, and pathologically so.

[Still feeding the alleged 'troll', eh?]

And where did I say they agreed with me? Mystics will in general side with you, won't they?

Quote:
I'm ducking no question -- I accept Marx's definition as a use-value satisfying human want, need, desire-- whether it be of subsistence or fancy. If you have a problem with that, go pick a fight with Marx, not me, as you love to say.

Oh, dear, the present tense again...

In that case, and based on the above, that chair, forgotten about in that cellar, can't be a use value since it's not "satisfying human want, need, desire...".

And if you try to relax the definition, then, as I have shown in that other thread, you will just drop yourself into an even deeper hole.

Quote:
Still looking for your explanation as to how an antique can have an exchange value without a use value; and how the "unknown" chair has an exchange value but not a use value, thereby making knowledge of the specific object the generator of its use value.

But this follows from your intentional definition of use value, not mine:

Quote:
I accept Marx's definition as a use-value satisfying human want, need, desire

And an unknown object, like that chair, can't be an object of "human want, need, desire" put in the present tense, can it?

So this defective definition of yours makes "knowledge of the specific object the generator of its use value".

Now, I realise that you have painted yourself into yet another corner, but, I did try to warn you.

Even so, as we can all see, you are still ducking the question I have posed you since the good old days a Louis Proyect's site:

Assuming you are 100% right about Marx and the 'dialectic' -- in that case, other than merely copying his use of 'contradiction', what is your justification for using it?

That's one of the questions you ducked then, and have ducked ever since, and are still ducking. In it's place all we get from you are delaying and avoiding tactics. As I predicted, you have avoided it again:

Quote:
If you continue to prevaricate, as I predict you will (as you did at RevLeft, at RedMarx and at Louis Proyect's site) the good folk here will soon begin to agree with me: you are full of hot air.

And I predict that you will deflect attention from it or avoid it some more -- since you can't answer it without admitting that the only reason you have for using 'contradiction' in the way you do is a slavish adherence to tradition.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 12 2012 20:53

R68:

Quote:
How could one pick a fight with Marx, Marx is dead, and that's before we even get into how one would pick a fight, a fight is not a scab, how would one get any kind of purchase on it, actually how could one buy a grasp of a scab, does a scab have a use-value in order to have an exchange value?

As usual an profound and incisive post from the master of confusion.

Good to see you are consistent in this respect... smile

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Mar 13 2012 17:14

actually something can have utility even if it isn't, at present, an object of anyone's desire. coal under the ground has utility even if no one knows of its existence. moreover, when a commodity is manufactured, the eventual purchaser may not yet have a desire for it...hence the need for the "sales effort" and advertising.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 13 2012 23:12

Syndicalisticat:

Quote:
actually something can have utility even if it isn't, at present, an object of anyone's desire. coal under the ground has utility even if no one knows of its existence. moreover, when a commodity is manufactured, the eventual purchaser may not yet have a desire for it...hence the need for the "sales effort" and advertising.

I agree, I'm just putting pressure on SA's sloppy 'definition'.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 14 2012 00:55

It's not my definition; it's Marx's. And that's not what is at issue. What is at issue is Rosa's claim that there are exchange values without use-values, claiming that antiques are exchange values without use values.

And this:

Quote:
actually something can have utility even if it isn't, at present, an object of anyone's desire.

with which RL so heartily agrees... exactly how does that differ, practically, from the statement that a use value is an object that can satisfy a human need, want, or desire?

As for this:

Quote:
moreover, when a commodity is manufactured, the eventual purchaser may not yet have a desire for it.

once again, in your example we've moved from use-values, which are not necessarily manufactured and do not necessarily have an exchange value to... exchange value itself. The coal as a commodity only has use value to the manufacturer as a vector, mechanism for exchange value, for the accumulation of value.

When you are talking about "marketing effort" for commodities, you're not talking about use-value, your talking about commodity fetishism, pure and not so simple.

Marketing efforts do nothing to increase the utility of a commodity. Marketing efforts have absolutely nothing to do with satisfying need. They exist only to make a sale.

Certainly capitalists support and engage in research to improve their commodities, to make them more useful, but that's not a "marketing effort," that's capital at work increasing the productive power of labor in order to aggrandize greater portions of surplus value.

Once again, there is no production of exchange values without production of use values-- even trivial, frivolous ones.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 14 2012 06:27

Duck-Meister:

Quote:
It's not my definition; it's Marx's. And that's not what is at issue. What is at issue is Rosa's claim that there are exchange values without use-values, claiming that antiques are exchange values without use values.

In fact, he said this:

Quote:
To begin with, a commodity, in the language of the English economists, is 'any thing necessary, useful or pleasant in life,' an object of human wants, a means of existence in the widest sense of the term. Use-value as an aspect of the commodity coincides with the physical palpable existence of the commodity. Wheat, for example, is a distinct use-value differing from the use-values of cotton, glass, paper, etc. A use-value has value only in use, and is realized only in the process of consumption. One and the same use-value can be used in various ways. But the extent of its possible application is limited by its existence as an object with distinct properties. It is, moreover, determined not only qualitatively but also quantitatively. Different use-values have different measures appropriate to their physical characteristics; for example, a bushel of wheat, a quire of paper, a yard of linen.

Whatever its social form may be, wealth always consists of use-values, which in the first instance are not affected by this form. From the taste of wheat it is not possible to tell who produced it, a Russian serf, a French peasant or an English capitalist. Although use-values serve social needs and therefore exist within the social framework, they do not express the social relations of production. For instance, let us take as a use-value a commodity such as a diamond. We cannot tell by looking at it that the diamond is a commodity. Where it serves as an aesthetic or mechanical use-value, on the neck of a courtesan or in the hand of a glass-cutter, it is a diamond and not a commodity. To be a use-value is evidently a necessary prerequisite of the commodity, but it is immaterial to the use-value whether it is a commodity. Use-value as such, since it is independent of the determinate economic form, lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy. It belongs in this sphere only when it is itself a determinate form. Use-value is the immediate physical entity in which a definite economic relationship – exchange-value – is expressed.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/ch01.htm

Quote:
A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference. Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production.

Every useful thing, as iron, paper, &c., may be looked at from the two points of view of quality and quantity. It is an assemblage of many properties, and may therefore be of use in various ways. To discover the various uses of things is the work of history. So also is the establishment of socially-recognized standards of measure for the quantities of these useful objects. The diversity of these measures has its origin partly in the diverse nature of the objects to be measured, partly in convention.

The utility of a thing makes it a use value. But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities. Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value....

A thing can be a use value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c. A thing can be useful, and the product of human labour, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities. In order to produce the latter, he must not only produce use values, but use values for others, social use values. (And not only for others, without more. The mediaeval peasant produced quit-rent-corn for his feudal lord and tithe-corn for his parson. But neither the quit-rent-corn nor the tithe-corn became commodities by reason of the fact that they had been produced for others. 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.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

Which, while not without its problems, is considerably more sophisticated than your 'definition'.

Even so, how does the above, and how does your 'definition', rule that chair -- forgotten about in that cellar -- a use value?

We have yet to be told.

Or, are you going to duck that one again, like you ducked this, too:

Assuming you are 100% right about Marx and the 'dialectic' -- in that case, other than merely copying his use of 'contradiction', what is your justification for using it?

And I predict that you will deflect attention from it or avoid it some more -- since you can't answer it without admitting that the only reason you have for using 'contradiction' in the way you do is a slavish adherence to tradition.

And I was right.

---------------

Anywho, how's that search of yours going for the missing passage, published by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to Das Kapital, that supports your attempt to re-mystify his work?

After all, you've been looking for it for at least two years... smile

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 14 2012 13:31

It would help if you actually understood what you were reading, but if you understood what you were reading you wouldn't be you.

This:

A thing can be a use value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour.

for example, which you do not comprehend, means that an object can be a use value, be useful to human beings without being a commodity.

This:

Quote:
Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities. In order to produce the latter, he must not only produce use values, but use values for others, social use values. (And not only for others, without more. The mediaeval peasant produced quit-rent-corn for his feudal lord and tithe-corn for his parson. But neither the quit-rent-corn nor the tithe-corn became commodities by reason of the fact that they had been produced for others. To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange.)

means that while use-values are not necessarily commodities, commodities must necessarily be use-values, social use values which can only be accessed by means of exchange.

Thus, there can be no commodities without use-value-- no value without use value, and the use value has to be made socially available through exchange when it exists in the form of the commodity.

To answer our comrades about the warehoused container ships, dry-bulk carriers, oil tankers-- of course they continue to be use values. They have lost their value as capital, as a means for accumulating more value. "Use values do not express social relations of production," right? The capitalist "use" of the ships is a social relation, dependent upon profitability of operating the ship under specific social relations.

So we get back to original issue: Your [Rosa's] lack of understanding regarding Marx's explanation of value as exhibited in your assertion that there are exchange values without use value.

Now you can either show where Marx's analysis is wrong... or you can produce your usual cut and paste job referring to your complete distortion of a translated afterword to an edition of Capital which you have never read. Which kind of sums up the only critique that needs to be made of the thousands of words you have produced-- sound and fury signifying nothing.

And that's all there is to this issue. The rest of what you produce is just chaff.

So answer the challenge to your assertion that there are exchange values without use values.

I predict that you won't.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 14 2012 15:48

The Mighty Prevaricator:

Quote:
It would help if you actually understood what you were reading, but if you understood what you were reading you wouldn't be you.

It would also help if you re-read the Afterword. Just a thought.

Quote:
means that while use-values are not necessarily commodities, commodities must necessarily be use-values, social use values which can only be accessed by means of exchange.

Thus, there can be no commodities without use-value-- no value without use value, and the use value has to be made socially available through exchange when it exists in the form of the commodity.

To answer our comrades about the warehoused container ships, dry-bulk carriers, oil tankers-- of course they continue to be use values. They have lost their value as capital, as a means for accumulating more value. "Use values do not express social relations of production," right? The capitalist "use" of the ships is a social relation, dependent upon profitability of operating the ship under specific social relations.

So we get back to original issue: Your [Rosa's] lack of understanding regarding Marx's explanation of value as exhibited in your assertion that there are exchange values without use value.

Now you can either show where Marx's analysis is wrong... or you can produce your usual cut and paste job referring to your complete distortion of a translated afterword to an edition of Capital which you have never read. Which kind of sums up the only critique that needs to be made of the thousands of words you have produced-- sound and fury signifying nothing.

And that's all there is to this issue. The rest of what you produce is just chaff.

All as interesting as it is irrelevant to showing how your definition does not imply that that chair isn't a use value if it lies, forgotten, in that cellar.

But, hey, I did predict you'd duck that one again.

Just as you have ducked this, once more:

Quote:
Assuming you are 100% right about Marx and the 'dialectic' -- in that case, other than merely copying his use of 'contradiction', what is your justification for using it?

And I predict that you will deflect attention from it and/or avoid it some more -- since you can't answer it without admitting that the only reason you have for using 'contradiction' in the way you do is a slavish adherence to tradition.

And I was right.

---------------

Anywho, how's that search of yours going for the missing passage, published by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to Das Kapital, that supports your attempt to re-mystify his work?

After all, you've been looking for it for at least two years...

The Duck-meister:

Quote:
So answer the challenge to your assertion that there are exchange values without use values.

I predict that you won't.

Already done it in that otgher thread; and I repeated it for you there, too.

Here it is yet again (for you to ignore some more):

Quote:
A woman buys a house and contents for $1,000,000. In the cellar there is an antique chair which she knows nothing about, and neither does anyone else. Five years later she sells the house and contents for $1,500,000, still knowing nothing of that chair.
Now according to your defective definition of use value (which, despite being warned to be careful, you unswisely put in the present continuous tense):
Quote:
A use-value is an object that satisfies a human want, need, desire,

that chair isn't a use value -- since it does not satisfy, and has not (for at least five years) satisfied a:

Quote:
human want, need, desire

And that's because no one knows about it.

Even so, it has an exchange value.

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Mar 14 2012 16:24
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
A woman buys a house and contents for $1,000,000. In the cellar there is an antique chair which she knows nothing about, and neither does anyone else. Five years later she sells the house and contents for $1,500,000, still knowing nothing of that chair.
Now according to your defective definition of use value (which, despite being warned to be careful, you unswisely put in the present continuous tense):
Quote:
A use-value is an object that satisfies a human want, need, desire,

that chair isn't a use value -- since it does not satisfy, and has not (for at least five years) satisfied a:

Quote:
human want, need, desire

And that's because no one knows about it.

Even so, it has an exchange value.

No it doesn't. But that's not the real problem here. It's not even the fact that other people cannot follow the logic that in your eyes connects your example to your conclusion - although that is a symptom.

The problem is that we cannot give you what you want - which is some kind of breakthrough or relief from what's driving you to write all that stuff on your website and across internet forums. I understand that you feel compelled to try and communicate, and that instinct is not wrong. But you are trying to communicate with the wrong people on the wrong topics. You will never get satisfaction this way. You need to talk to someone in real life, in confidence and within a properly therapeutic relationship, that can help you. We can't do that for you, and no-one on the internet can either. The sooner you see this the better it is for you. I'm sorry to have to say this, but there comes a point where continuing the dialogue as if it were a normal dialogue becomes us enabling your denial. And that is not going to help anyone.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 14 2012 22:57

Your example fails to prove that the chair has exchange value. How can the chair figure into the exchange value of the house if no one knows about it? As a matter of fact your entire argument is an exercise in stupidity and trivialization--

Suppose there's a chair somewhere that nobody knows about......

Why would I or anyone suppose there's a chair that nobody knows about when supposing such a chair is in fact based on its existence?

Imagine there's a plant somewhere in some rain forest that can cure cancer. Nobody knows about this plant. It is not known to exist. Does the plant have a use value, an exchange value? It's just that sort of question that should make everyone realize how far removed "supposing-ism" is from Marxism.

Why would I suppose or imagine a chair that nobody knows about when the issue is the appropriation of nature by human labor, which because human beings are social beings, is simultaneously the appropriation of human labor by society?

Why would anyone waste time imagining such a stupid triviality? I know why you waste time with it Rosa.... because you have nothing to say about Marx's critique of capitalism. You cannot demonstrate the validity of a single assertion, a single element of that critique in an analysis of past or present capitalism.

You offer lip-service to "historical materialism" without ever once evincing any understanding of what historical materialism is-- a practical-critical activity that does not accrue to believers, but can only be advanced by those who practice it.

Your supposed "purification" of Marx, removing the poison of Hegelian dialectic, has, by your own admission and omission zero practical significance for Marx's critique of capital. Your "purification" doesn't "improve" a bit of Marx's writings prior to volume 1 of Capital; you cannot advance, as Marx does, by one iota, any of the concepts worked out in A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. You cannot demonstrate the tendency of the rate of profit to fall; you cannot explain what overproduction is, and how the Marx of Capital differs, if he does, in his analysis of overproduction from the "Hegelian" Marx of the Economic Manuscripts..... and we could go on and on.

Instead you want to waste everybody's time with "imagine a chair that nobody knows about"-- and you imagine that even without knowing about it, somebody is willing to pay half a million dollars for the unknown, unimagined chair, that he has no knowledge of, and no use for.

That's not just ridiculous idealism; its the work of a dilettante; and it is literally nonsensical. Besides which, it's the business acumen of an imbecile.

So keep on with your trivial pursuit, and your elevation of the trivial, absurd, nonsensical to the first principle of your "anti-Hegelian dialectic." It fits the trivial, absurd, nonsensical you perfectly.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 15 2012 07:34

Ocelot:

Quote:
No it doesn't. But that's not the real problem here. It's not even the fact that other people cannot follow the logic that in your eyes connects your example to your conclusion - although that is a symptom.

Er.., a flat denial is not a proof, no matter what inner forces compelled you to post this in the fond imagination it was.

Quote:
The problem is that we cannot give you what you want - which is some kind of breakthrough or relief from what's driving you to write all that stuff on your website and across internet forums. I understand that you feel compelled to try and communicate, and that instinct is not wrong. But you are trying to communicate with the wrong people on the wrong topics. You will never get satisfaction this way. You need to talk to someone in real life, in confidence and within a properly therapeutic relationship, that can help you. We can't do that for you, and no-one on the internet can either. The sooner you see this the better it is for you. I'm sorry to have to say this, but there comes a point where continuing the dialogue as if it were a normal dialogue becomes us enabling your denial. And that is not going to help anyone.

Oh, dear, yet another amateur, mystical psychologist offering a remote diagnosis.

Yes, this'll stop me... roll eyes

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 15 2012 07:35

Donald Duckster:

Quote:
Your example fails to prove that the chair has exchange value. How can the chair figure into the exchange value of the house if no one knows about it? As a matter of fact your entire argument is an exercise in stupidity and trivialization--

Then how can it be a use value if no one knows about it?

Quote:
Why would I or anyone suppose there's a chair that nobody knows about when supposing such a chair is in fact based on its existence?

Are you suggesting that in the entire history of the human race since chairs were invented, there has never been, nor could there be a chair that has been totally forgotten about?

If so, I'd like to see your proof.

If not, and we rely your defective intentional 'definition', then there can be objects that have no use value -- like that chair.

And the reason we should suppose such things is quite plain: it exposes your 'definition' as defective.

Quote:
Imagine there's a plant somewhere in some rain forest that can cure cancer. Nobody knows about this plant. It is not known to exist. Does the plant have a use value, an exchange value? It's just that sort of question that should make everyone realize how far removed "supposing-ism" is from Marxism.

Well, this just adds pressure to your defective 'definition'. It's not a problem for me, but it is for you.

Moreover, imagining such a plant, which hasn't been made by human labour, is not at all the same as the example of that chair, which has.

Quote:
Why would anyone waste time imagining such a stupid triviality? I know why you waste time with it Rosa.... because you have nothing to say about Marx's critique of capitalism. You cannot demonstrate the validity of a single assertion, a single element of that critique in an analysis of past or present capitalism.

You offer lip-service to "historical materialism" without ever once evincing any understanding of what historical materialism is-- a practical-critical activity that does not accrue to believers, but can only be advanced by those who practice it.

So you keep saying, but may I remind you (yet again!) that you are the one who can't justify his use of 'contradiction' -- except you appeal to tradition -- and that I had to inform of Marx's caveat that even a 'coquetted' contradiction involves a unity of opposites that 'mutually exclude' one another (something you had forgotten about) -- which, of course, means that there can be no such 'contradictions'.

Plus, you are the one whose defective intentional 'definition' of use value (carelessly put in the present continuous tense -- even though I warned you to be careful) implies that any object not known about loses its use value.

Now, instead of moaning about me, you'd be far better employed:

1) Justifying your odd use of 'contradiction' -- without the usual knee-jerk appeal to tradition;

2) Locating that missing passage, published by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to Das Kapital, that supports your attempt to re-mystify his work;

3) Explaining why objects that aren't known about can have a use value, when your intentional 'definition' implies they can't.

But, we all know you prefer to duck such questions, and that you will continue to dream up all manner of avoiding tactics to deflect attention from your plight.

Like this, for example:

Quote:
Your supposed "purification" of Marx, removing the poison of Hegelian dialectic, has, by your own admission and omission zero practical significance for Marx's critique of capital. Your "purification" doesn't "improve" a bit of Marx's writings prior to volume 1 of Capital; you cannot advance, as Marx does, by one iota, any of the concepts worked out in A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. You cannot demonstrate the tendency of the rate of profit to fall; you cannot explain what overproduction is, and how the Marx of Capital differs, if he does, in his analysis of overproduction from the "Hegelian" Marx of the Economic Manuscripts..... and we could go on and on.

What I can or cannot do is irrelevant to answering 1)-3) above, two of which I have been asking you about for over two yeras, and which you have serially ducked.

As I predict you will continue to duck.

Or divert attention by yet more personal attacks, like this:

Quote:
Instead you want to waste everybody's time with "imagine a chair that nobody knows about"-- and you imagine that even without knowing about it, somebody is willing to pay half a million dollars for the unknown, unimagined chair, that he has no knowledge of, and no use for.

That's not just ridiculous idealism; its the work of a dilettante; and it is literally nonsensical. Besides which, it's the business acumen of an imbecile.

So keep on with your trivial pursuit, and your elevation of the trivial, absurd, nonsensical to the first principle of your "anti-Hegelian dialectic." It fits the trivial, absurd, nonsensical you perfectly.

Hence, this still stands:

Quote:
Assuming you are 100% right about Marx and the 'dialectic' -- in that case, other than merely copying his use of 'contradiction', what is your justification for using it?

And I predict that you will deflect attention from it and/or avoid it some more -- since you can't answer it without admitting that the only reason you have for using 'contradiction' in the way you do is a slavish adherence to tradition.

And I was right.

And I'll continue to be right.

Have a nice duck...

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 15 2012 09:50

R68:

Quote:
if it is forgotten about, if no one knows it exists the yes it has no use value but alas it also has no exchange value, which was the original issue, you claimed you could have exchange value with no use value.

Recall, I'm discussing SA's 'defintion' here, not any you attempt to cobble together on an ad hoc basis.

So, according to SA's intentional 'definition' that chair can't have a use value.

But, since it was sold, also unknown, it has an exchange value.

Hence, some things can have an exchange value but no use value.

QED smile

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 15 2012 11:54

I would suggest we all stop enabling this psychotic known as Rosa.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 16 2012 16:11

Donald Duckster:

Quote:
I would suggest we all stop enabling this psychotic known as Rosa.

You suggested this about thirty posts ago, and then prompty ignored it.

Seems like you not only ignore the many holes in your own 'theory' but you even ignore yourself, too!

But, wait! What was it I predicted?

Oh yes, this:

Quote:
What I can or cannot do is irrelevant to answering 1)-3) above, two of which I have been asking you about for over two yeras, and which you have serially ducked.

As I predict you will continue to duck.

Or divert attention by yet more personal attacks, like this:

Quote:
Instead you want to waste everybody's time with "imagine a chair that nobody knows about"-- and you imagine that even without knowing about it, somebody is willing to pay half a million dollars for the unknown, unimagined chair, that he has no knowledge of, and no use for.

That's not just ridiculous idealism; its the work of a dilettante; and it is literally nonsensical. Besides which, it's the business acumen of an imbecile.

So keep on with your trivial pursuit, and your elevation of the trivial, absurd, nonsensical to the first principle of your "anti-Hegelian dialectic." It fits the trivial, absurd, nonsensical you perfectly.

Hence, this still stands:

Quote:
Assuming you are 100% right about Marx and the 'dialectic' -- in that case, other than merely copying his use of 'contradiction', what is your justification for using it?

And I predict that you will deflect attention from it and/or avoid it some more -- since you can't answer it without admitting that the only reason you have for using 'contradiction' in the way you do is a slavish adherence to tradition.

And I was right.

And I'll continue to be right.

It's really tedious being right all the time.

Someone needs to put me in my place -- no good looking to the Dusckster then, eh?