I blame the pot noodles.
But seriously, what about that whole labour thing? In terms of both exchange and division thereof?
Jul 10 2006 18:01
Jul 10 2006 18:20
Hi
The transmission of power is through the money supply, authoritarian conditioning and conventions of social status. The “exchange of the commodity of labour”, in the Marxist sense, doesn’t really occur. Jobs are increasingly a welfare-capitalist provision anyway, and are expected to consume rather than generate surplus value.
Love
LR
Jul 11 2006 07:34
I was under the impression that my work was a simple exchange of time (labour time) for money. If that doesn't make my labour time a commodity I fail to see what does.
As for the idea that capitalists give us jobs out of the kindness of their hearts, I don't think much of their charity. And exactly how do job consume surplus value?
BTW, could an admin split this discussion between me and Lazy off into another thread? It seems to have become more of a discussion about what capitalism is rather than communism. 
Jul 11 2006 08:09
Hi
Quote:
I was under the impression that my work was a simple exchange of time (labour time) for money. If that doesn't make my labour time a commodity I fail to see what does.
To be fair, “commodity” in this context is just a piece of Marxist jargon.
Quote:
As for the idea that capitalists give us jobs out of the kindness of their hearts, I don't think much of their charity.
“Kindness of their hearts” is your interpretation, not mine. My Mrs got a call from a New Deal officer the other day, offering to pay half the wages of anyone they took on from the scheme, when the job, in itself was financed by Government grant. If you spend any time sniffing around the local regeneration industry you soon find that wealth creating occupations are simply a thing of the past.
Quote:
And exactly how do job consume surplus value?
Most occupations don’t generate wealth or provide utility, but merely take up all the working class’s time and provide incomes to finance capitalist markets to perpetuate the middle class’s blind rat-race for social status. In the post-industrial-state-capitalist societies, jobs are just extensions of the “social welfare” system.
Quote:
could an admin split this discussion between me and Lazy off into another thread? It seems to have become more of a discussion about what capitalism is rather than communism.
Not so fast. You’d be the first to admit that communism has no meaning in itself; without it’s negation, capitalism, it is nothing. Also, separating communism from a Marxist analysis of history and “commodity relations” is futile.
Love
LR
Jul 11 2006 12:10
Quote:
To be fair, “commodity” in this context is just a piece of Marxist jargon.
Well, actually, I'd say it was part of the general jargon of economics and part of the essential meaning of the word "commodity". It simply means something that can - and is, of course - traded in return for something else. And, by any measure, it seems obvious to me that in capitalism labour is a commodity.
Quote:
“Kindness of their hearts” is your interpretation, not mine. My Mrs got a call from a New Deal officer the other day, offering to pay half the wages of anyone they took on from the scheme, when the job, in itself was financed by Government grant. If you spend any time sniffing around the local regeneration industry you soon find that wealth creating occupations are simply a thing of the past.
The fact that the state provides assistance to employers doesn't change the basic capitalist relationship. Firstly, such assistance is needed because many employers simply cannot afford to keep going without it. Without this assitance, huge swathes of the economy would collapse outright. The funds for this assistance come from two main sources. Taxes from profitable business i.e. the state's share of surplus value already appropriated by these employers and surplus value extracted directly from workers via the joy of PAYE. But, more and more, the funds for this kind of support come from the credit system - which is again sourced from surplus value that cannot find truly profitable investment in production, and also from the "hot money" created by all kinds of financial ledgermain, first and foremost created from air by the state.
This shaky financial edifice is errected for two reasons - firstly, to keep the economy limping along, primarily for the bourgeosie's own protection. But the other factor that concerns them is that allowing the economy to evolve "naturally" i.e. without state intervention, would create such massive and unprecedent poverty for the working class that it could detonate a social explosion. The bourgeoisie, even at its most arrogant, fears this above all other things.
It is precisely because capitalism has been reduced to such a bizarre mode of operation, in total contradiction to its own basic rules that us marxists say it's in crisis.
The fact that most jobs today do not provide any truly useful human utility does not mean that the working class is still not exploited or no longer produces surplus value. Our labour is still appropriated and the bourgeoisie still makes profit from it, at least when the surplus value can be realised on the market. A wage-slave in a snake-oil factory is still a wage slave, regardless of whether the product has any true use, or whether the state is propping up the business.
Quote:
Not so fast. You’d be the first to admit that communism has no meaning in itself; without it’s negation, capitalism, it is nothing. Also, separating communism from a Marxist analysis of history and “commodity relations” is futile.
In that respect, you're quite right. But this is on the introductory section on a general question, which to my mind, was about what the future society would be like. On the other hand, if you feel strongly about it staying here, I'm not precious about it.
Jul 11 2006 15:52
Hi
Quote:
it seems obvious to me that in capitalism labour is a commodity.
I suppose some is and some isn’t. I’d argue that the relationship between proletariat and bourgeoisie is one of command not one of exchange.
Quote:
It is precisely because capitalism has been reduced to such a bizarre mode of operation, in total contradiction to its own basic rules that us marxists say it's in crisis.
So Marxists have a special meaning for “crisis” now as well? Good stuff.
Quote:
The fact that most jobs today do not provide any truly useful human utility does not mean that the working class is still not exploited or no longer produces surplus value.
Some are, some aren’t. So do, some don’t. What’s more there’s no relationship between the level of exploitation and the rate of profit either.
Quote:
Our labour is still appropriated and the bourgeoisie still makes profit from it, at least when the surplus value can be realised on the market.
The presence of a market is irrelevant to the bourgeoisie’s “profit”. In the modern age “profit” is social status and a secure income rather than the stock pile of capital associated with Marx’s idealised Victorian capitalist entrepreneurs.
Quote:
A wage-slave in a snake-oil factory is still a wage slave, regardless of whether the product has any true use, or whether the state is propping up the business.
Quote:
The fact that the state provides assistance to employers doesn't change the basic capitalist relationship
Well seeing as the fact that the state being the employer doesn’t change the basic capitalist relationship, I can hardly contend with these obvious positions. I can’t see what point you're countering though.
Quote:
On the other hand, if you feel strongly about it staying here, I'm not precious about it.
Fair play comrade. I’m all posted out on this one anyway.
Love
LR
Jul 11 2006 17:11
Quote:
Fair play comrade. I’m all posted out on this one anyway.
Now I'll have no-one to play with. Oh well, until next time. 
Jul 12 2006 02:52
Quote:
The transmission of power is through the money supply, authoritarian conditioning and conventions of social status. The “exchange of the commodity of labour”, in the Marxist sense, doesn’t really occur.
Sounds like a fetishization to me, these people don't really have power over you becuase of these things, do they? And your comment on exchange of the commodity of labour seems like a non-sequiter, to me. So the beaurocracy reifies you (?) instead, it all amounts to the same thing, doesn't it?
Jul 12 2006 11:42
Hi
I'm sorry. I've run out of useful stuff to say. I'll address your post, lem, on a different thread.
Love
LR
Jul 13 2006 00:39
Hi
Interesting discussion, and Demogorgon303 defence communism against lazy riser's mutualism has to be welcomed. And in the process of discussion the difference between communism and mutualism have been made much clearer.
However, there is an aspect of the discussion that has not been developed and which would be very useful to take up, may be on a separate thread. That is the explanation of the growth of barbarism over the past 100 years.
Lazy riser you may not have anything more useful to say about your definition of society, but an answer to the very concrete question that Demogorgon303 asked you would be very useful:
Quote:
In what way does it exist in name only? Don't two progressively brutal World Wars, two profound periods of economic crisis (with one lasting over thirty years and still going on today), a Cold War which offered a real threat of nuclear obliteration, and the contemporary catastrophe of the "war on terror", demonstrate that capitalism has been in crisis for rather a long time?
You did not answer this direct point in the discussion, and from memory - and i may be wrong- you have not anwered or dealt with it elsewhere on the forums. You discuss about the definition of capitalism etc, but appear to avoid explaining the terrible destruction of humanity being wrought on humanity by wars, starvation, disease, poverty, ill health, ecological destruction.
Does mutualism have an explanation for war, starvation, ecological destruction, mass unemployment? You appear to deny that society could be on a desent into barbarism, so what do increasing wars, stravation etc mean in the mutualist analysis?
Jul 13 2006 08:44
Hi
Quote:
lazy riser's mutualism
There is no such thing as “Lazy Riser’s Mutualism”.
Quote:
Don't two progressively brutal World Wars, two profound periods of economic crisis (with one lasting over thirty years and still going on today), a Cold War which offered a real threat of nuclear obliteration, and the contemporary catastrophe of the "war on terror", demonstrate that capitalism has been in crisis for rather a long time?
Dictionary wrote:
noun (pl. crises) 1 a time of intense difficulty or danger. 2 the turning point of a disease, when it becomes clear whether the patient will recover or not.
Whilst it is a time of “intense difficulty” for the working class is not so for the bourgeoisie. Rank economic underperformance and the associated wars, rather than being a symptom of “the disease of capitalism”, is precisely what the bourgeoisie ordered and as such signals a healthy capitalism performing entirely as expected. To keep this thread on track, I’ll reiterate my understanding of the essence of communism…
“Communism advocates the abolition of private property as a necessity for survival in the context of the Marxist theory of history and the inevitable decay of the capitalist economic system into barbarism”
Love
LR
Jul 13 2006 10:30
Quote:
I’d argue that the relationship between proletariat and bourgeoisie is one of command not one of exchange.
Definitely, ultimately capital is a method ensuring power as much as money is a measure of it.
I'm not sure that I buy your argument about wars Demogorgon303. If you look back through history you'll find that war tends to end up as a massacre or a meat grinder. Pitched battles are always costly, one side is rarely superior enough to win without heavy losses, one of the reasons why good commanders have always tried to avoid them.
There are lots of jobs that exist simply to keep the money circulating rather than to actually produce wealth, and there will continue to be many as long as it remains unprofitable to produce anything in this country and the government fails to address the horrendous trade deficit.
Jul 13 2006 11:32
Hi
Lazy riser why not answer the questions asked
"Does mutualism have an explanation for war, starvation, ecological destruction, mass unemployment? You appear to deny that society could be on a desent into barbarism, so what do increasing wars, stravation etc mean in the mutualist analysis?"
your answer
Quote:
Whilst it is a time of “intense difficulty” for the working class is not so for the bourgeoisie. Rank economic underperformance and the associated wars, rather than being a symptom of “the disease of capitalism”, is precisely what the bourgeoisie ordered and as such signals a healthy capitalism performing entirely as expected"Does not explain anything about the reasons for wars, starvation, but rather avoids it once again. Once again what is mutualism's analysis of imperialism, starvation etc, does it have one? Or were two world wars, the death of millions in numerous local wars and the chopping off of whole sections of the world economy such as parts of Africa, expressions of a "healthy capitalism"
About keeping this thread on track, lazy you said you had said all that you had to say, the post was aimed at trying to widen the discussion
Jul 13 2006 13:02
Marxian analysis of surplus value is still valid within a certain, albeit limited in scope, macroeconomy. The problem is the wealthiest of the wealthy no longer rely on maximizing the surplus value of commodities, because most of the big money today is made from usury and interest on loans. Someone earlier mentioned that investment and credit is still based on surplus value--but only to a minor extent. With a large portion of the world money supply being fiat (i.e. nonexistant except in the whim of a national treasury), there is no concrete amount of money to tie down the level of investment and loan-making. So when Marx's Moneybags figure doles out a few million to an entrepreneur to create a new business, the entrepreneur is under obligation to maximize surplus value in order to pay off his debts and to expand his business operations, but the capitalist who financed him is not under any such obligation at all. That is the unfortunate (for them) tie that binds the modern capitalist to commodity markets, however different that relation is from 140 years ago. In other words, a bank does not need to create surplus value above its expenses because 99% of its income is pure profit and the "expenses" come from imaginary sources (except the cost of administration, upkeep, and the losses incurred from nonpayment of loan obligations by clientele), however in order for that profit to mean anything in the real world the prices of goods with which to enjoy that wealth still have to be tied to commodity and service markets. But if there is no surplus value to be found, there will be no willing suppliers moving into Market X. And without a competitive market forcing those prices as low as possible while still being non-zero, the profit and authority of a bank becomes as useless as the paper currency it issues. In short, (and forgive me if I have overlooked something; I wrote this rather quickly), the world's banks and investors do not need commodities to make money, they make money from consumers and from businesses; the world's businesses do need commodities because they are not in a position (at the moment) to lend money and thus absolve themselves of the burden of producing anything of utility; the world's consumers need commodities for their utility, thus they need businesses to produce them, thus the businesses need investment (and in order to produce goods to make money and pay back the banks, they need workers and resources--the resources need in turn businesses to produce them, which in turn need investment, workers, and resources, and so on). Labour still plays a valuable role in the capitalist cycle, although it is not so much important to making money as it is to giving that money something to be spent on and denominating the factors of and opportunities for the exchange.
Jul 13 2006 13:47
Hi
Quote:
so what do increasing wars, stravation etc mean in the mutualist analysis?
I have not the foggiest. I don’t know what “stravation" means in any analysis. I know very little about mutalism. All I can say is that it must be very lame if even communists have robust positions against it.
It's a measure of the size of enemy communism is able to take on, if it’s still developing critiques of equally marginalised ideologies.
Love
LR
Jul 13 2006 20:14
v. interesting, ghosty
Can comment on articles and discussions
Hi
Shocking isn’t it. I blame the credit boom.
Love
LR