tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post8143491240361927633..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Engels’ Letter to Werner Sombart on the Labour Theory of Value in 1895Lord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger93125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-50495073262591829962015-05-16T05:40:39.297-07:002015-05-16T05:40:39.297-07:00It's value arises from the belief that it will...It's value arises from the belief that it will be accepted by others as payment for goods and services. And those who accept it as payment today only do so because of their belief that others will accept it as payment tomorrow. Without this belief, buttressed by past experience and legal tender laws, a fiat currency has no value.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-26356234965412257412015-05-16T03:41:31.705-07:002015-05-16T03:41:31.705-07:00An obsolete old banger that cannot run on unleaded...An obsolete old banger that cannot run on unleaded petrol isn't worth more than a pin. I had to pay the local council to take it off my hands!<br /><br />Next question: Why is the kohinoor diamond worth more than a car?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-56787377697562145702015-05-16T00:52:51.019-07:002015-05-16T00:52:51.019-07:00http://existentialcomics.com/comic/77http://existentialcomics.com/comic/77Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17386123430230365251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-26430387749109755452015-05-15T14:57:08.145-07:002015-05-15T14:57:08.145-07:00"all over the developing capitalist world ani..."all over the developing capitalist world animal labour is very important"<br /><br />Animal labour on its own is useless to us without human labour. Animals can dig holes and eat grass and kill each other as much as they want, but we need human labour to produce or obtain things used by humans.<br />Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17386123430230365251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-62868910883097312022015-05-15T14:52:40.607-07:002015-05-15T14:52:40.607-07:00"The choice of labour is ultimately arbitrary..."The choice of labour is ultimately arbitrary"<br /><br />No, it isn't. Labour is what is required to produce goods. As such it is a logical place to look to explain basic differences in value.Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17386123430230365251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-80407306866213731492015-05-15T14:47:05.231-07:002015-05-15T14:47:05.231-07:00"Our fiat money does not ultimately represent..."Our fiat money does not ultimately represent any commodity. It is an abstract unit of account and medium of exchange divorced from any particular commodity, even labour."<br /><br />It must have some value in terms of commodities, otherwise you wouldn't be able to buy anything with it. Why does it have value and why does it buy less of one thing than of another?Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17386123430230365251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-64642865832275637652015-05-15T14:40:32.351-07:002015-05-15T14:40:32.351-07:00"I see no great mystery here"
So why is..."I see no great mystery here"<br /><br />So why is a car worth more than a pin?Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17386123430230365251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-18767874663006595022015-05-15T12:22:55.203-07:002015-05-15T12:22:55.203-07:00yeah, in the revolution the enemy is the existing ...yeah, in the revolution the enemy is the existing regime and the ruling bourgeois class. So those people wouldn't get a say, obviously. The proletariat class would impose its will, through revolution, on the ruling bourgeois class in order to overthrow the existing regime (the 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie'). <br /><br />However, within the proletariat class there would be a form of democracy, not rule by a single dictator or party. <br /><br />"In the 1891 postscript to The Civil War in France (1872) pamphlet, Friedrich Engels said: "Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat"; to avoid bourgeois political corruption:<br /><br />'the Commune made use of two infallible expedients. In this first place, it filled all posts—administrative, judicial, and educational—by election on the basis of universal suffrage of all concerned, with the right of the same electors to recall their delegate at any time. And, in the second place, all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers. The highest salary paid by the Commune to anyone was 6,000 francs. In this way an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up, even apart from the binding mandates to delegates [and] to representative bodies, which were also added in profusion'.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariatAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17386123430230365251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-2077623058761019432015-05-15T11:52:57.148-07:002015-05-15T11:52:57.148-07:00"The 'dictatorship of the proletariat'...<i>"The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' means rule by the proletariat class, in opposition to the existing 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie'. However this isn't supposed to be a dictatorship by a single dictator, or by an unelected 'inner party', <b>but based on a form of democracy within the proletariat class."</b></i><br /><br />I see no evidence for this.<br /><br />How do you explain this vision of the dictatorship of the proletariat by Engels:<br /><br /><i>“A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?"</i><br />Friedrich Engels, “On Authority,” 1874<br />https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm<br /><br /><br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-88146046178289924512015-05-15T11:46:35.247-07:002015-05-15T11:46:35.247-07:00As I said, communism is supposed to be a stateless...As I said, communism is supposed to be a stateless, classless society, i.e. a form of anarchism. It's not an authoritarian state or dictatorship.<br /><br />A major disagreement between anarchist communists and Marxist communists was over how to bring about a communist society. Marx claimed that it would necessarily be preceded by a form of state socialism, and the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', whereas anarchists argued that you could and should transition directly to communism by immediately dismantling the state.<br /><br />The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' means rule by the proletariat class, in opposition to the existing 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie'. However this isn't supposed to be a dictatorship by a single dictator, or by an unelected 'inner party', but based on a form of democracy within the proletariat class. However, it would be revolutionary and this would entail violence and authoritarianism in order to overthrow the existing regime. <br /><br />Marx and Engels both referred to the Paris Commune as an example of 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.<br /><br />Marx also argued that communism would only finally come about in a highly technologically advanced society, with a high degree of automation of labour (where the 'productive forces' are developed to such an extent that you have a situation of abundance), whereas anarchist communists argue that you can have a communist society with any level of technology.<br /><br />Also, although the soviets referred to their system as socialist, with the end goal being communism, some marxists and many anarchist communists argue that it was actually a form of 'state capitalism'.<br />Philippenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-62604835914048054982015-05-15T11:33:38.971-07:002015-05-15T11:33:38.971-07:00I wrote a brief response with the names of some sc...I wrote a brief response with the names of some scholars and some concrete figures. Was it lost in the shuffle?Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-68521737091822055232015-05-15T11:09:19.767-07:002015-05-15T11:09:19.767-07:00Marx, Capital vol.3 chapter 9:
'[…] the avera...Marx, Capital vol.3 chapter 9:<br /><br />'[…] the average daily wage is indeed always equal to the value produced in the number of hours the labourer must work to produce the necessities of life. But this number of hours is in its turn obscured by the deviation of the prices of production of the necessities of life from their values. However, this always resolves itself to one commodity receiving too little of the surplus-value while another receives too much, so that the deviations from the values which are embodied in the prices of production compensate one another. Under capitalist production, the general law acts as the prevailing tendency only in a very complicated and approximate manner, as a never ascertainable average of ceaseless fluctuations.'Philippenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-78380071066622122502015-05-15T10:51:44.495-07:002015-05-15T10:51:44.495-07:00"If, on the other hand, a worker produces a c...<i>"If, on the other hand, a worker produces a commodity which is in fixed supply (and the worker owns that commodity), then the worker can receive more than the value of their labour when they sell it. This would be profit."</i><br /><br />Yes, say, a great or popular painter or artist. Good point.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-4416715817133090652015-05-15T10:26:52.258-07:002015-05-15T10:26:52.258-07:00Ian,
"Your quote from Marx about "avera...Ian,<br /><br />"Your quote from Marx about "average prices" applies to a natural price equilibrium with capitalist profits. That's why Marx says they "do not directly coincide with the values"."<br /><br />You said above that:<br /><br />"Marx also states that in a natural price equilibrium, with a positive, uniform profit-rate and equal organic compositions of capital (OCC), then prices are proportional to values."<br /><br />Did you mean that, according to Marx, in a 'natural price equilibrium, with a positive, uniform profit-rate and equal organic compositions of capital', prices are equal to values? Philippenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-12470810261479755462015-05-15T10:06:35.639-07:002015-05-15T10:06:35.639-07:00Philippe,
The Soviet system was and Marx's di...Philippe,<br /><br />The Soviet system was and Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat was intended to be an authoritarian system stripped of all the best features of classical liberalism. Engels tells us how he conceived it in the passage above: as an authoritarian terror state.<br /><br />Why otherwise intelligent people on left insist in making excuses for communism, given its bloodsoaked record, is beyond me.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-54649278965735583072015-05-15T10:06:32.733-07:002015-05-15T10:06:32.733-07:00Also, see non-Marxist, anarchist conceptions of co...Also, see non-Marxist, anarchist conceptions of communism and how to get to it:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism<br />Philippenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-40722763220705716622015-05-15T10:02:05.930-07:002015-05-15T10:02:05.930-07:00And I've already answered you: labour is indee...And I've already answered you: labour is indeed a major factor of production influencing the prices of many newly produced goods.<br /><br />That does <i>not</i> vindicate Marx's LTV, which would require special conditions as stated above to work. <br /><br />And you still haven't explained to me how you define the LTV as you want to defend it.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-50647503975320324162015-05-15T10:01:36.250-07:002015-05-15T10:01:36.250-07:00Communism is supposed to be a 'stateless socie...Communism is supposed to be a 'stateless society', i.e. a form of anarchism. According to Marx the communist society would eventually come about after a prior period of state socialism and what he called 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' (rule by the proletariat class). <br /><br />The soviet regime referred to its system as socialism rather than as communism proper.<br /><br />In communism, distribution is supposedly based on the principle of 'from each according to ability, to each according to his need', whereas under the soviet socialist system the principle was distribution according to work.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needPhilippenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-33618642189570664762015-05-15T09:54:57.153-07:002015-05-15T09:54:57.153-07:00"in fact a labour theory that includes animal..."in fact a labour theory that includes animal labour or natural energy used in production (e..g, wind power) would make a lot more sense empirically"<br /><br />Well, rather than asserting what you think makes sense empirically, why not examine the (unfortunately limited) literature that examines this question? As I mentioned, many posts earlier, that literature demonstratse that other real cost bases (such as oil, corn, energy etc.), do *not* correlate with aggregate input-output prices like labour costs do. Labour costs are especially explanatory in a statistically significant manner.<br /><br />Why is that, I wonder? <br /><br />Anyhow, I'm glad you're considering that answers other than "nothing" might be worth thinking about.Ian Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07119300130417955190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-54052167394086108502015-05-15T09:49:18.979-07:002015-05-15T09:49:18.979-07:00And in fact a labour theory that includes animal l...And in fact a labour theory that includes animal labour or natural energy used in production (e..g, wind power) would make a lot more sense empirically since all over the developing capitalist world animal labour is very important, just as it was in the 19th century, where horse labour was vitally important. Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-19903014420218666682015-05-15T09:44:55.631-07:002015-05-15T09:44:55.631-07:00The choice of labour is ultimately arbitrary. Why ...The choice of labour is ultimately arbitrary. Why should labour be the "ultimate" value here? Why not energy?<br /><br />I could pick energy expended in production and make all monetary units represent energy (whether human labour energy expended or animal labour or natural energy sources used or machine energy), and then hold an energy theory of money. <br /><br />In fact, as production becomes more and more automated by machines, robots and AI and human labour falls towards zero an energy theory money would be more empirically relative than a labour theory. <br /><br />Or we could pick corn (= wheat) as Ricardo first wanted to do, etc. Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-88443198692645113152015-05-15T09:38:54.869-07:002015-05-15T09:38:54.869-07:00"Even worse Marx denies that long run Classic..."Even worse Marx denies that long run Classical equilibrium natural/average prices equal labour value" <br /><br />He doesn't do that in the quote above.<br /><br />What Marx seems to be saying is that whereas Smith and Ricardo saw price as converging to a equilibrium natural price which is equal to value, in reality market prices are regulated by values on average, such that deviations of prices from values cancel each other out on average over the long-term, rather than converging to a single equilibrium price.<br /><br />This seems to be what he is saying in this quote from Value, Price and Profit:<br /><br />"The deviations of market prices from values are continual, but as Adam Smith says:<br /><br />“The natural price is the central price to which the prices of commodities are continually gravitating. Different accidents may sometimes keep them suspended a good deal above it, and sometimes force them down even somewhat below it. But whatever may be the obstacles which hinder them from settling in this center of repose and continuance, they are constantly tending towards it.” <br /><br />I cannot now sift this matter. It suffices to say that <i>if</i> supply and demand equilibrate each other, the market prices of commodities will correspond with their natural prices, that is to say with their values, as determined by the respective quantities of labour required for their production. But supply and demand <i>must</i> constantly tend to equilibrate each other, although they do so only by compensating one fluctuation by another, a rise by a fall, and vice versa. If instead of considering only the daily fluctuations you analyze the movement of market prices for longer periods, as Mr. Tooke, for example, has done in his History of Prices, you will find that the fluctuations of market prices, their deviations from values, their ups and downs, paralyze and compensate each other; so that apart from the effect of monopolies and some other modifications I must now pass by, all descriptions of commodities are, on average, sold at their respective values or natural prices. The average periods during which the fluctuations of market prices compensate each other are different for different kinds of commodities, because with one kind it is easier to adapt supply to demand than with the other."<br /><br />https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch02.htm#c6Philippenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-39517973363077857832015-05-15T09:30:57.214-07:002015-05-15T09:30:57.214-07:00(1) That units of our modern fiat money do not pro...(1) That units of our modern fiat money do not properly or ultimately represent any specific commodity is an empirical statement with a huge amount of evidence to support it. Governments do not promise to convert your fiat money to any specific commodity nor does the money unit correspond to any individual commodity.<br /><br />(2) that real labour costs form a big part in calculation of cost-based mark-up pricing does not prove that money units are just labour time value, either raw labour hours or Marx's SNLT.<br /><br />(3) furthermore, as I mentioned above there is a vast swathe of prices throughout modern capitalist economies NOT explained by nor correlated with labour costs:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2015/05/what-labour-theory-of-value-does-not.html<br /><br />If money is ultimately labour value, why are many prices not based on costs of production? e.g., second goods are detached from costs of production.<br /><br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-41132591487372115022015-05-15T09:24:37.732-07:002015-05-15T09:24:37.732-07:00"Finally, even if you want to tell me that mo..."Finally, even if you want to tell me that money units are really ultimately units of labour time, that doesn't explain the prices of many goods in modern capitalism or profits in many sectors"<br /><br />Aha! We may be getting somewhere. What I've been suggesting is that these two propositions are relatively independent. Once can claim that money units represent labour costs (i.e. hold a labour theory of value), while also maintaining that labour costs are not the sole cause of the structure of relative prices (i.e. acknowledge that many other factors cause this structure).Ian Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07119300130417955190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-14023222460354848752015-05-15T09:18:45.800-07:002015-05-15T09:18:45.800-07:00I didn't ask for empirical evidence regarding ...I didn't ask for empirical evidence regarding the genesis of money! I asked for empirical evidence, or some sort of explanation, for your statement that the unit of account represents "nothing". <br /><br />Also, it is irrelevant what the medium for the unit of account is. It can be cows, gold, bytes, or whatever. You are mixing up the representation with its vehicle. A weather vane measures the direction of wind. Clearly, it does not matter what materials were used in making it!<br /><br />I mentioned the empirical studies earlier that show that labour is especially explanatory, compared to other real cost bases. You did not respond. But this is the place to look if you want to start thinking about the kinds of evidence that may support, or invalidate, any particular claims regarding a theory of value.<br /><br />Currently, your answer of "nothing" is mere assertion. There's a richer tradition you could draw on here, but I'm beginning to suspect that you're not really interested in the theory of value, but probably have a political, rather than scholarly, agenda here.Ian Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07119300130417955190noreply@blogger.com