|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The primary difference between colonialism and neocolonialism is that unequal exchanges are maintained through the appearance of voluntary relationships, which are actually compelled by economic dependencies. that's true of every relationship of exchange in a capitalist economy
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:12 |
|
|
The primary difference between colonialism and neocolonialism is that unequal exchanges are maintained through the appearance of voluntary relationships, which are actually compelled by economic dependencies. Such as Cuba selling sugar to the USSR, or Africa selling raw materials to China in exchange for infrastructure projects
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:The primary difference between colonialism and neocolonialism is that unequal exchanges are maintained through the appearance of voluntary relationships, which are actually compelled by economic dependencies. Socialist trades in the second world weren't the same thing as trades in capitalist markets, because the Comecon tended to arrange trades with an equal balance of exchange.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:If you can get 5 labor time hours worth of clothes, but only gave part of your produce from 2 hours of labor time in exchange for the clothes, then under the actually existing conditions of commodity production & exchange, you'd have to be farming a product way more valuable than the finished product - something that most likely doesn't factor into the production of the good you're exchanging it for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:For a third world country which is a primary good producer, the value of production can't be realized without exchanging money for imported finished products Manufacturers are dependent on producers, and producers are dependent on manufacturers - you cannot claim once is independent of the other. What determines the level of exploitation is there level of power differential between then, it is not some iron clad law of commodity production that the most value added manufacture is more powerful. rudatron fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Jul 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Wrong wrong wrong. The surplus is not dependent on the value of the final individual product, but on the value created per hour of labor time. If I can produce 3 tonnes of primary product in those 2 hours, and the tailor can only produce 1 tonne, it is entirely logical. It doesn't matter that the final product is less valuable per tonne - so long as I can produce more value per hour of labor time, its entirely possible for a primary producer to exploit a secondary producer. You are stating a law that does not exist, and a cursory examination of the theory would have told you that. Except when you buy back the goods produced from the raw materials extracted by your labor, you're paying both the value of your labor that made the raw good and the value added to the finished product in the manufacturing process. It's impossible for that exchange to be unequal in your favor. At a national level that equates to an extraction of value from the raw material producing country to the country which manufactures the finished goods that are made from them. Otherwise you can't realize the use value of your labor because you can't consume raw goods, they're only useful as industrial inputs. Not unless your country can manufacture the finished good itself, which isn't possible under free trade restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 02:28
|
|
|
Not true: if the are more manufacturers than producers, and the producers are able to create more value per hour of labor, these producers will have a greater standard of living than any one manufacturer, because they'll be able to purchase more products with that greater surplus value.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
Again: your focusing on the value of an in individual product, which is irrelevant. Exploitation is a relationship of labor, and if I can labor little, and take products well in excess of my contribution from the labor of others, I've exploited them. The value of each individual product is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Not true: if the are more manufacturers than producers, and the producers are able to create more value per hour of labor, these producers will have a greater standard of living than any one manufacturer, because they'll be able to purchase more products with that greater surplus value. Except there aren't more manufacturers than producers on a global scale. The global trade system is intentionally set up to minimize industrial development and maintain its concentration in the Global North. rudatron posted:Again: your focusing on the value of an in individual product, which is irrelevant. Exploitation is a relationship of labor, and if I can labor little, and take products well in excess of my contribution from the labor of others, I've exploited them. The value of each individual product is irrelevant. It's not an issue of individual product, it's an issue of the entire process of production and how it's realized globally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 02:43
|
|
|
And that world order would be a consequence of geopolitical power projection, not because of the chain of commodity production! So, in other words, your claim that primary producers are necessarily exploited is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 02:49
|
|
|
I did say that primary producers are necessarily exploited by their relation to the global system.Pener Kropoopkin posted:For capitalist countries which cannot center themselves in global finance power, they are by necessity the subjects of imperialist exploitation, and further impoverished through the extraction of superprofits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 02:58
|
|
|
whatever this shits gay who cares
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 03:10
|
|
|
r/cumradeproblems
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 03:18
|
|
|
I think I'm turning into a tankie because pener is the only one of yall making any sense and oh god what now I'm reading Blood Lies send help
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
* a banshae emerges from the fog* READ SETTLERS BY J. SAKAI!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 03:23
|
|
|
Infernot posted:
What is there to “comeback” to, that account is creepy
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I did say that primary producers are necessarily exploited by their relation to the global system. You. Are. Wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
Is there anything worth reading that is critical of Furr or is he pretty much 100% correct
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
rudatron posted:you also claimed that primary producers are necessarily exploited by virtue of being producers, since they don't manufacture finished goods: a claim that is dumb and absurd, and which has been disproven. Australia is a prime example here: you dismissed is because 'nobody lives there', yet it is able to produce a lot of primary products, because it is advanced, - in other words, the labor time per tonne, and therefore, the value per labor time is the most important metric, not value per tonne, as you claimed before. I never claimed any of this. Pener Kropoopkin posted:First World countries maintained their living standards after decolonization, because they maintained imperialistic relations through neocolonialism. You can still extract value through unfair debt servitude instead of outright trade, and the absolute value of trade doesn't reflect the fact that the true value of production is still realized in the Global North. If you buy up raw materials from a third world country, then add values through superior production processes, and sell them back the finished product at much higher markups - that's a massive extraction of surplus value through trade. It makes sense that most of the trade the United States does in value terms is done with other First World countries, because we're the ones who still produce all of the finished products with the highest added values. Nowhere did I ever claim that countries are necessarily exploited because they're primary producers, I said that trading back finished goods to a primary extraction country equates to an extraction of value from the raw producer to the manufacturer. Even in the case of an oil producing country, it would be an unequal exchange for them to trade oil for finished petroleum products. Your thought experiment about exchanging farm goods for a suit or whatever doesn't work, because it's unrelated to the production process of realizing the utility of the farm goods.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 03:47
|
|
|
A Big Fuckin Hornet posted:Is there anything worth reading that is critical of Furr or is he pretty much 100% correct https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3idnj0/video_of_a_college_professor_saying_that_he_has/cufpcon/
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
You absolutely did. Observe:Pener Kropoopkin posted:If you can get 5 labor time hours worth of clothes, but only gave part of your produce from 2 hours of labor time in exchange for the clothes, then under the actually existing conditions of commodity production & exchange, you'd have to be farming a product way more valuable than the finished product also this little exchange with thug lessons: quote:Thug Lessons posted: also: Pener Kropoopkin hosed around with this message at Jul 18, 2018 around 11:57 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
And again, we can return to this little bite:Pener Kropoopkin posted:Selling finished goods back to a country which provided the raw materials is an extraction of value.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
the fact that you had to basically dismiss Australia out of hand, because it's the prime counter-example to everything you've said, is the biggest tell that you're clueless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You absolutely did. Observe: The point is that you can't trade raw material for a finished good that is somehow more valuable than the finished good produced from it. You imagined a situation where farm goods are being traded for a product unrelated to its production cycles, which isn't the same thing. It's not an issue of you producing more wealth for yourself in absolute terms, but the nature of the exchange where you trade a raw good for its finished product. At the end of the exchange, the tailor possesses more value than you produced to trade, even if you were more productive in terms of labor time. The fact you are richer than the tailor doesn't change the nature of the exchange itself. I rejected the claim that voluntary trades can't be considered exploitative, because there's a ton of situations where they demonstrably are. quote:also: Pener Kropoopkin hosed around with this message at Jul 18, 2018 around 11:57 Go to bed, creep.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
should just gently caress already imo
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 04:16
|
|
|
A Big Fuckin Hornet posted:Is there anything worth reading that is critical of Furr or is he pretty much 100% correct my personal opinion of furr is that he's a good researcher and cataloguer of data but his interpretations are iffy, at best. j. arch getty, robert thurston, mark tauger, stephen wheatcroft and robert davies tend to be better resources in terms of "hard" historians. robert allen is good for economics. al szymanski is good for political economy. everybody loves parenti. probably some others i'm forgetting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 04:25
|
|
|
Pablo Nergigante posted:What is there to “comeback” to, that account is creepy i dunno what the deal is with these people always using the "-oid" suffix for Designated Enemies but it's fuckin weird
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 04:26
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:should just gently caress already imo
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The point is that you can't trade raw material for a finished good that is somehow more valuable than the finished good produced from it. What keeps the global south poor is the power projection capabilities of the north, which is a means keeping the price of primary products low. That's it. rudatron fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Jul 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
rudatron posted:the fact that you had to basically dismiss Australia out of hand, because it's the prime counter-example to everything you've said, is the biggest tell that you're clueless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 04:43
|
|
|
rudatron posted:If, in order to make one engine for themselves, a manufacturer has make 10 engines, importing iron from a producer which exports enough iron for 10 engines, and then 9 of those engines go to the producer, which way to do you think the exploitation is going? Again, this is only possible as a pure abstraction. In the real world you can't trade 10 units of iron for 9 engines, because that would mean the iron accounts for 90% of the price. There is no real world production process where this is even close to being true. There is no real world exchange where the price of a finished good hasn't been marked up in excess of its actual value. Do you realize that we're talking about the real world and not an abstraction of fantasy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
It's a clear disproof of your claim that primary producers necessarily lose value during exchange, because you're only looking at the the value-added of each individual commodity, and not the total labor required for the production of the commodity. Exploitation is a function of labor, and an exchange is unequal when the total of embedded labor-time being exchanged, don't match up to the price or value. The fact that I've had to use a thought experiment to explain this point to you is your failing, not mine, because I've already repeatedly given you a real world example (Australia) that you have repeatedly dismissed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
broke: read settlers woke: read marx pays a visit to foxconn
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 06:19
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It's a clear disproof of your claim that primary producers necessarily lose value during exchange, because you're only looking at the the value-added of each individual commodity, and not the total labor required for the production of the commodity. Exploitation is a function of labor, and an exchange is unequal when the total of embedded labor-time being exchanged, don't match up to the price or value. The fact that I've had to use a thought experiment to explain this point to you is your failing, not mine, because I've already repeatedly given you a real world example (Australia) that you have repeatedly dismissed. Because Australia is a First World country you loving idiot!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 13:48
|
|
|
yet, it's a first world country whose majority exports are primary products, and it can get away with a high standard of living, because it's large capital investment means that the embedded labor in each tonne of export is really, really small. it is, therefore, not being exploited on account of being a primary producer. notice how the distinguishing factor here, had absolutely nothing to do with incompetent fiddling over 'value added' you were doing before?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 13:53
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 14:00
|
|
|
rudatron posted:yet, it's a first world country whose majority exports are primary products, and it can get away with a high standard of living, because it's large capital investment means that the embedded labor in each tonne of export is really, really small. it is, therefore, not being exploited on account of being a primary producer. The distinguishing factor was that Australia was a fully developed white settler state, and not subject to the same kind of odious restrictions as other colonies. Australia gets rich because they were intentionally brought up to speed with its mother country. It's an exception of historical development, which is the very basis of imperialism as it actually exists. China still comes out on top in the end anyway, because they're still the country where the utility of production is ultimately realized. China grows its wealth at a rate that far outstrips Australia, until the point that China becomes a fully developed country and overtakes them - since Australia has deindustrialized itself to put more emphasis on resource extraction. I'd also like to point out that this is the exact opposite of what you argued months ago when you were screaming your head off about how America's trade imbalances with China means they're hoovering up all of our productive capacity until the point we'd become a poor nation. In that case you sure seemed to think that China was exploiting a First World country through its trade exchanges.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 14:09
|
|
|
AFAIK Australian mining has pretty average capital intensity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
my actual point on China was that the value outflow from china is mostly purchasing capital, which means that even though capital flows and trade flows are balanced (as they have to be for the currency values to be stable), it's of detriment to the united states, because capital has a return and consumer goods don't. it's a completely different issue to what you claimed. You made a claim that primary producers must necessarily have value extracted from them. that is categorically not true, as I have demonstrated, and something you've yet had the integrity to admit -- even if you've effectively conceded the point, because you can't muster a legitimate response. i'm not comparing the development trajectories of China to Australia, I brought Australia up because it disproved you. Pener Kropoopkin posted:Australia gets rich because they were intentionally brought up to speed with its mother country. rudatron fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Jul 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 14:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:12 |
|
|
rudatron posted:You made a claim that primary producers must necessarily have value extracted from them. that is categorically not true, as I have demonstrated, and something you've yet had the integrity to admit -- even if you've effectively conceded the point, because you can't muster a legitimate response. I never made that claim. The point was that if you directly exchange raw materials for finished goods, the manufacturer comes out with the most value at the end of the exchange, ok? For a country that primarily produces raw materials to become rich, they would have to produce enough commodities that their supply is greater than their demand for finished goods. Instead of trading 10 iron for 9 engines, Australia is trading 1000 iron for 9 engines. So where is the excess demand for the raw materials coming from? If the supply of commodities becomes too great then their price will tank, so the demand is coming from industrialized countries that can actually process the iron and realize its utility. The development of wealth in the industrialized countries then, vastly outstrips the wealth of the raw material goods producing country, because they are realizing the value of both the labor from the raw material producer, and their own labor which is added into the production process of finished goods. You can only get rich on mining alone when your population is already so small that your own demand for goods is vastly outstripped by your ability to supply raw commodities to the world economy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 14:42
|
|