Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Sell Marxism/Communism to me
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'll answer as close to what I would consider to be Marx's understanding.Anonymous1987 wrote: »To ensure the effiecient allocation of resources I would think it is the producer's responsibility and is also in their interests to measure the demand (or usefulness) of the good.
It is, but that doesn't matter in itself. It is a precondition of the transformation of the money of the producer into capital, it does not affect the character of labour process as a production of specific use values, nor the objectification of labour time in the article.Anonymous1987 wrote: »The production of a good would not seem to make it valueable unless it has a use, I guess timing plays also plays a factor in the value of a good as you mentioned the exchange value versus the use value.
It has no value without both, but you cant realise both at the same time. In the transformation of the umbrella into value, I get the use value through purchase, and you the exchange value through sale. The question the labour theory of value asks is, what has happened in the above to create more value, or (as you the producer would hope), surplus value? If it costs you ten euros to produce the umbrella in one hour under socially average conditions (counting technology, raw materials, costs of production, and the money necessary for me, the labourer to reproduce myself as a functioning body), and you sell it for ten euro, you have created value through the expenditure of labour, but you have not transformed the ten euros into capital, you have merely exchanged equivalents. The labour has not been valorized.
The only way for you to enter your money into the valorization process, is to put me to work for longer. Bear in mind that marx was writing at a time when the gold standard provided a direct equivalent form of the value of commodities - long before the free movement of currency, Bretton Woods institutions and the deregulation of finance capital in Britain. Also long before crises of effective demand were addressed through policy, all of which affect the nature of 'gold' as an equivalent form, and the fixity of socially necessary labour as a measure of value.Anonymous1987 wrote: »However if you're producing umbrellas in the desert even though the same labour hours have been imputed the umbrellas clearly have less value than they would in Ireland. I would agree though that often it is the case that most of the value of a good can be attributed to labour however an element should also be provided for the entrepreneur's "labour" in bring it all together.
Again, value is socially necessary labour time objectified in the commodity form. If you are producing in the desert, you can produce infinite use-values. It doesnt matter that you are in the desert, what matters are the conditions socially necessary for the production that define the money price - which includes broader umbrella production. You cannot produce value, as you have no hope of selling your umbrella. You have lost your fronted money, and have not created value, because you have not resolved the duality of the commodity through sale. There is no demand for your umbrella, the labour is not valorized, your money does not function as capital, you make a loss.
The question in all the above should be 'have I taken more out of circulation than that with which I started', and if so, what has allowed me to do so. Marx's answer was that it was the labour objectified in the commodity, valorized at market.
The entrepreneur is rewarded by the surplus value. If you study sociology at some point, you will likely encounter a theory course that will tell you marx wanted communism, and only saw two classes of people. What was outlined above were not 'things', you cant say 'this is capital, these are proletarians, these guys are capitalists' - well perhaps you can...
The point is that they are explications of particular forms of social relations that in marx's view, allowed for an infinite accumulation of surplus value in money form, distinct from previous social forms, which were finite accumulations of specific use-values. The above tell you that 'when x enters his money into relation y through the labour of z', the money can be said to exist in a relaton that permits its valorization and functioning as capital. Similaraly, the worker, irrespective of what or how he is producing stands in a particular relation to the capitalist. The problems begin when we attempt to transpose this logical argument into the identification of specific social groups.Anonymous1987 wrote: »I would agree there is a problem with short term versus long term decision making in capitilism. For example the average CEO is someone in their mid fifties, they might view a short term gain for the company quite favourable in terms of retirement and would be encouraged with performance related bonus pay to make this move, in the long run the company has bigger problems but their thinking is "in the long run we're all dead". Ironically periods of stability in the markets feeds bubbles and would seem to account for the instable nature of capitilism.
A marxist would probably tell you that successive bubbles are the result of a search for a commodity equivalent money form - dollars through bretton woods, petrodollars, property.Anonymous1987 wrote: »If longer term decision making were possible in capatilism as it would seem to be in the interests of corporations (in effect they have an infinite life span barring liquidation) it would be more likely to include environmental and to a lesser degree social factors as these would impact on the viability of the corporation. It would seem to go back to your earlier comment about the structure of capitlism.
What impressed me most on reading capital for the first time were the footnotes on metabolism and how metabolic relations are mediated through social forms. Throughout all three volumes there are little asides on things like the production of cheap bread in London, the changing of food production to fit the working day and health reports on declining nutritional standards.Anonymous1987 wrote: »I didn't quite understand what you meant by surface form or circulation, maybe you could briefly explain them.
They're part of the marxian lexicon. One of Marx's arguments against the economists of his time was their insistence on focusing on the sphere of circulation. Based on the umbrella example, the process of the creation of capital completes its 'circuit' through the purchase of labour on the market, production (the 'hidden' step), and later, sale at market. The 'surface form', or 'phenomenal form' of the objectified labour is the umbrella. The surface form tells you nothing of the social character of labour embodied within it. The circulation separation has been an important point for theorists such as Wallerstein and Hindess, and is important to the primitive accumulation argument, and the formation of global markets. Historically, you could have communities of communal peasants producing surplus for sale to pay feudal rents, that had come to be expressed in money, rather than in kind through corvee for example. The money paid could then continue to function as capital, depending on the interests of the landlord, but the production process, and social relations between lord and tenant remain feudal in nature.
The point was that if you only observed the circulation, you would not grasp the social forms under which the labour was preformed. This point has been problematic, as circulation is much easier to investigate historically.
What I think is worth asking is, in what ways does 'neoclassical' economics confront the limits of the above?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement