|
bee movie is actually reactionary anti-socialist propaganda watch it and see
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:21 |
|
|
The first three chapters are the most useful and cool imo. The rest of the book is extrapolation of the system set up in the first three chapters into various areas of interest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 00:36
|
|
- hi
|
Peel posted:Is the book club still happening? I had a rec for that. Epic High Five posted:ALSO I WILL BE STARTING UP THE CSPAM BOOK CLUB THREAD TONIGHT PLEASE MAKE ME FUN GRAPHICS OR WHATEVER BULLSHIT I DUNNO TO PLASTER THE OP WITH Looks like ya 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
I'm thinking about the LTV and its usual criticisms in terms of supply and demand. Marx directly addresses the question of scarcity:page 130 posted:Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the Earth's surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of labour time. Consequently much labour is represented in a small volume. Jacob questions whether gold has ever been paid for at its full value. This applies still more to diamonds. There's an interesting remark that something might never be paid for at its full value. So what Marx seems to be driving at here is value not as price itself but as an 'objective' factor that can be distorted one way or the other by social context to produce the final price, possibly for a long time. In the introduction to the Penguin edition Ernest Mandel says 'it establishes the axis around which long-term changes in the relative prices of commodities oscillate'. Thinking it through I can see how it works. On the one hand, the value of a commodity sets a lower bound on the price for which it can be produced profitably. Some force might push the exchange value of the commodity below the value, but this is unsustainable, because you're getting paid less than you need to purchase the inputs to produce the commodity. In the longer term if the price does not rise the manufacturer will go bust, unless he subsidises from some other income source. On the other hand, if the price of a commodity goes above its value due to scarcity, other capitalists will seek to move into the industry, and the cost of entry is equivalent to the 'discovery cost' of diamonds - you can't open a diamond mine without finding some diamonds to mine. Superior surveying technologies will reduce the labour cost of finding additional diamonds and so reduce the value of diamonds. Things like gold and diamonds can be persistently priced below their value (if they actually are) because part of the value consists of a labour search cost that's averaged over all searches, successful and unsuccessful. But this cost isn't paid by currently existing mine owners, who probably benefited from luck in finding their mines. It would only be paid in a mature economy where the lucky mines have been exhausted or are negligible special cases and systematic searching for new sources is going on. This only really works in an infinite universe where you can keep on finding more minerals at a fixed difficulty though. Demand isn't treated besides a remark at the end of the section that if a thing is useless it has no value and the labour that went into it doesn't count as labour. This is a binary factor - either it's useful or it isn't - but does point the way to a better solution since if a thing is of inferior quality it might be considered 'half-useless' and so half the labour that went in is wasted, or maybe wasn't 'socially necessary'. The theory does more or less hang together against these obvious objections but gives me a feeling of adding epicycles rather than getting to the truth. Unfortunately wiki tells me that Marx doesn't tackle the 'transformation problem' of turning values into prices until volume 3. Lastgirl posted:Looks like ya  and i must meme posted:bee movie is actually reactionary anti-socialist propaganda antz is the communist one
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Peel posted:The theory does more or less hang together against these obvious objections but gives me a feeling of adding epicycles rather than getting to the truth. Unfortunately wiki tells me that Marx doesn't tackle the 'transformation problem' of turning values into prices until volume 3. As far as published stuff goes, yeah. But his private correspondences illustrate that he had already solved the supposed "problem" long before even vol 1 was published. He doesn't spell it out in 1 mainly because to do so would require getting into a bunch of other topics also not covered in vol 1 (e.g., prices of production, individual and general rates of profit, etc). As he says in the preface to the first edition (MIA ed), the aim of vol 1 is to provide a general theory: quote:Intrinsically, it is not a question of the higher or lower degree of development of the social antagonisms that result from the natural laws of capitalist production. It is a question of these laws themselves, of these tendencies working with iron necessity towards inevitable results. ... Vol 3, on the other hand, covers "the varied forms assumed by capital in the course of its development." Aeolius has issued a correction as of 21:37 on Apr 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
I'm actually thoroughly enjoying Mandel's introduction thus far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
1-02: Chapters 1-2 'What then follows, I think, is a very boring exegesis of how this works.' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwuMrd_Hgww Chapter 1 is pretty verbose but covers the development of the commodity through one-to-one value relations to general value relations to money. It then covers commodity fetishism, or the masking of relations between people behind relations between things, which is something any of us who have seen a politician talk about 'the markets' or other economic phenomena as external natural forces imposing on society can relate to. Chapter 2 is about how exchange between owners of commodities happens and recapitulates the development of money more socially. There's some good lines making fun of people taken with the supposedly inherent majesty and sanctity of money. Timestamps: 0:06:00 - Chapter 1 0:50:00 - Commodity fetishism 1:28:17 - Chapter 2 1:39:30 - Conclusion For me the most interesting question coming out of these chapters is how Marx's approach to money need be updated for the fiat era, but chapter 3 is also about money so there's a limit to how far we can go with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Is there a good hardcover version of Capital Vol 1 that anyone here recommends? There seems to be so many different versions on Amazon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Chapter 1 impressions: The analogy comparing/contrasting value with weight is quite good. So much text is spent reiterating the example of 1 coat = 20 yards of linen... We get it, Karl! I like the snappy comeback at the end about chemistry. I wish he explained this a little better: quote:Skilled labour counts only as simple labour intensified, or rather, as multiplied simple labour, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a greater quantity of simple labour. Experience shows that this reduction is constantly being made. Can someone explain how can you (for instance) reduce the work of a skilled watchmaker to a greater quantity of labor of an unskilled watchmaker who can't even make a proper watch? Is it saying that you can equate skilled watchmaking with enough unskilled watchmaking utilizing trial an error? I think I get what Marx is saying, but something more concrete would be great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:Can someone explain how can you (for instance) reduce the work of a skilled watchmaker to a greater quantity of labor of an unskilled watchmaker who can't even make a proper watch? Is it saying that you can equate skilled watchmaking with enough unskilled watchmaking utilizing trial an error? I think I get what Marx is saying, but something more concrete would be great. You are misunderstanding value here. Someone who can't make a watch at all or is failing to making a watch is producing no value. They wouldn't be making a watch. 'Skill' in this instance is related to the production. value. More skill=more value produced. While at a micro level, a skilled watchmaker can generate more value than than a unskilled one, at a macro level the skill produced by all watchmakers is an average. It leads into a contradiction of labor. If I am producing more value than my colleague, it is likely that I am having more value taken from me. Even if my increased in production of value makes me get paid better, it is only because the owners are making a larger profit off of my labor. At least, I think that is what is going on  Edit: It might be simpler to say skill is in relation to average value produced. Higher than average=high skilled, lower than average=low killed. Mean Baby has issued a correction as of 20:19 on Apr 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
High skill vs. low skill labor is also analogous to the value invested in discovering a diamond mine in his example. Even though it takes roughly the same amount of time to mine a diamond as it is to mine, like, some coal, it takes a lot longer to find the diamond mine, which is part of the value. Similarly, high skills take a long time to "find." You have to discover them through study, diligence, time spent doing the actions etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
NNick posted:They wouldn't be making a watch. Yes, this is the thing that needed to be said. It's obvious that only labor that productively culminates in the creation of a watch could be considered watchmaking. Not sure why I overlooked that, lol. I understood the bit about "only productive labor into useful commodities matters". It was the complication of a minimum level of skill necessary for a certain kind of production that confused me. But you are right, even if the labor requires a minimum level of skill, an insufficiently skilled laborer is not actually doing useful labor if they were to try -- they might as well be making mud pies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
this is a cool fuckin thread and cool fuckin book good fuckin job OP
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:High skill vs. low skill labor is also analogous to the value invested in discovering a diamond mine in his example. Even though it takes roughly the same amount of time to mine a diamond as it is to mine, like, some coal, it takes a lot longer to find the diamond mine, which is part of the value. This is also my best interpretation of that section, that it's about human capital. But this also leads to a reflection on 'deskilling'. One thing automation does is not so much remove human workers from the equation as remove their skills from the equation. A watchmaker is replaced by a watch machine operator. A salesperson with their interpersonal talents is replaced by a call centre worker following a script. And the deskilled worker has less social status and bargaining power, so their wages are reduced to those suited for 'unskilled workers'. So in that light automation, rather than presenting problems for the LTV as is often assumed by critics, can instead make it more directly applicable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Peel posted:For me the most interesting question coming out of these chapters is how Marx's approach to money need be updated for the fiat era, but chapter 3 is also about money so there's a limit to how far we can go with that. I don't know that fiat currency requires an update, it seemed to me Marx was arguing that money becomes A Thing (TM) because it acquires a perceived position as the final arbiter on relative value. A fiat currency then replaces something with a certain perceived value and a high labor value (like gold mined from the hills) with something with an equivalent perceived value and a lower labor value.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
SomeMathGuy posted:I don't know that fiat currency requires an update, it seemed to me Marx was arguing that money becomes A Thing (TM) because it acquires a perceived position as the final arbiter on relative value. A fiat currency then replaces something with a certain perceived value and a high labor value (like gold mined from the hills) with something with an equivalent perceived value and a lower labor value. You're right about how Marx said money comes about, but Marx also says that the Money-Form expresses value in amounts of a commodity: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S3d posted:The particular commodity, with whose bodily form the equivalent form is thus socially identified, now becomes the money commodity, or serves as money. It becomes the special social function of that commodity, and consequently its social monopoly, to play within the world of commodities the part of the universal equivalent. Amongst the commodities which, in form B, figure as particular equivalents of the linen, and, in form C, express in common their relative values in linen, this foremost place has been attained by one in particular – namely, gold. If, then, in form C we replace the linen by gold, we get, I think it depends on if you can argue a dollar bill being a commodity, or that it represents an actual commodity. Otherwise, it would definitely not be covered by this definition of Money-Form.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Dollar bills are one thing in that they have a value that is wildly distinct from the exchange value, though granted the text itself says that exchange value and value don't always match. But they are at least physical objects that need to be manufactured. What about the better part of dollars that are just entries in a database? They have no labour cost at all, not even the initial production cost like for digital products. The money form is 'D' but maybe that needs to be respecified as the commodity-money form, and now we are in some new state 'E', after commodity money itself proved too much of a drag and had to be replaced.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
That's a good point, but I'm skeptical that money "must" be a commodity in order for Marx's theory to work given some of his objections to Proudhon and then-contemporary pro-labor voucher anarchists. Perhaps there'll be more coverage in Chapter Three. In any case I am honestly surprised at how comparatively readable the first two chapters are. I was expecting something... drier? More convoluted? It strikes a nice balance between scientific writing and more traditional prose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Peel posted:So in that light automation, rather than presenting problems for the LTV as is often assumed by critics, can instead make it more directly applicable. Exactly. That capitalism turns automation into one theater of class struggle is an important point discussed quite explicitly in Capital. People who try to use automation as a value-theoretical "gotcha" against Marxists are only signaling their profound ignorance; it's on par with suggesting Darwin hadn't considered the role of natural selection in evolution. For a relevant contemporary example, someone recently pointed out this passage to me (though I haven't had time to read the whole article): quote:The textile and garment industry is composed of the knitwear, fashion and textile (fabric-making) industries. In the knitwear enterprises, there is functional upgrading towards brand manufacturing. Additionally, there is also process upgrading through automation (i.e., using computer (or computerised) numerical control (CNC) machines). The former has enhanced demand for a small number of highly skilled workers in design and administration. The latter has reduced the number of manufacturing workers and deskilled them. A most fascinating finding with regard to the CNC machines is that even illiterate workers, guided by visual elements, can oversee their faultless operation; the manufacturers of these machines deliberately make them with a view to deskilling the machine operators. The fashion enterprises have undergone upgradation in terms of strengthening their capacities in product design and marketing resulting in the polarisation between creative and marketing functions requiring higher-skilled staff on the one hand, and low-skilled manufacturing functions on the other. It is clear that the growing sophistication of marketing and designing does not require skill upgrading at the level of production. Re: moneychat: In the case of fiat tokens it's not strictly accurate to think of its costs of production in terms of "value," since it's not produced as a commodity, and it is to that process the category belongs. As such, in the wide world of monies, the money commodity (gold, in this case) remains the essential store/measure of value. Capital is written from the perspective of capital, and capital sees only value, hence the necessity of a commodity money somewhere at the base of the totem pole is enforced by the process of accumulation itself. People often mistake Marxists for goldbugs because of this, but there's a crucial distinction to be made. When we say "gold never stopped being money," it's a descriptive remark, not a prescriptive one. No Marxist advocates for a gold standard, for example. And of course other kinds of what we commonly think of as money — credit, tokens, derivatives, etc. — are acknowledged as well, but we also acknowledge that these each have different origins, functions and behaviors. Empirically, these paper forms are the dominant means of circulation in the world today. And Marx even discusses this very phenomenon (way, way, later, in vol 3), arguing that gold can be completely removed from circulation without inhibiting the process. Yet it would (and indeed does) still retain a critical role in international trade, as a sort of world money. Hence the continued importance of gold reserves. I can upload some supplemental papers I found helpful on this when I get home. Aeolius has issued a correction as of 17:39 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
I might get flamed for bringing up bitcoins but it's interesting to think of the exchange value of bitcoins (when they were relatively unknown, before the intense speculation took hold) arose from the productive labor in building & maintaining a network that performs transaction bookkeeping. Bitcoins are interesting in that they have absolutely no use value except as a storage of exchange value, which only exists because of the labor necessary to maintain the network that they reside in. You could consider them a pinnacle of fiat money in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:I can upload some supplemental papers I found helpful on this when I get home. I'd certainly be interested; I like this idea that gold is still money even though it no longer "formally" backs up the value of currency as that definitely tracks with how I see people commenting on the markets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Peel posted:Dollar bills are one thing in that they have a value that is wildly distinct from the exchange value, though granted the text itself says that exchange value and value don't always match. I would actually go farther and suggest that value, use-value, and exchange value are entirely different forms of value. They don't match. A key point in the first few chapters is showing that the exchange values does represent the value of a commodity (the socially necessary labor necessary to produce) or the use-value (how useful it). It congeals the latter two forms of value and fetishes the exchange value of the commodity. Let's use the iPhone and Juicero as example commodities. Value: I think it is safe to say the socially necessary labor time to produce a iPhone and Juicero is different. We can say it costs 20 hours for an iPhone and 10 for a Juicero. In other words, 1 iPhone=2 Juicero. It could also be 2 iPhone=1 Juicero. Use-value: iPhone is a computer in your pocket. Juicero is a thing which squeezes bags of poo poo slower than you could with your hand. Exchange Value: iPhone=$700, Juicero=$700 As Marx points out, the exchange value of a commodity 'congeals' it actual value (socially necessary labor) and often has no relationship to it's use-value. Something costs more only means it costs more, not that it is more useful or has more value. The iPhone/Juicero example is how two things can have different value and cost the same amount. Some commodities, like the iPhone and Juicero, are sold way above their value. Other commodities, like most retail items, are barely above their value, and still others, like video game consoles, are actually sold at a lower cost than the their value. Commodity fetishism is a key reason for this process. Branding is all about increasing the exchange value of products without fundamentally altering it's value. While marketing is certainly reflected in the value of a commodity (it is apart of the socially necessary labor time), the socially necessary labor time necessary to build a brand is less than upgrading a processor. This is why company's invest so much in marketing. Fetishism works the other way as well. When we buy food at the supermarket, we usually discuss them in terms of their exchange value. This apple is expensive, I got a good deal on Doritos, the Mountain Dew was on sale. We rarely think about the socially necessary labor time, the amazing process which got it to the supermarket, often with extremely cheap exploited labor, or how useful this commodity is to our body, "these Doritos will make me sick". Our relationship to food changes. We now seeing a process where food is taking on the inverse fetishization, where people believe it can heal cancer. While dollars don't have any use-value or cost very little labor time to produce, there are plenty of other examples of this phenomenon. Our entire financial system is selling commodities like stocks, insurance, etc. where exchange value is generated off of other exchange value mechanisms being trivial to produce and having no actual use.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
SomeMathGuy posted:I'd certainly be interested; I like this idea that gold is still money even though it no longer "formally" backs up the value of currency as that definitely tracks with how I see people commenting on the markets. I think the author I've gotten the most out of has been Claus Germer. "Credit Money and the Functions of Money in Capitalism" is a good rundown of the overall idea I was trying to convey. "Monetary Economy or Capitalist Economy?" objects to certain attempts to equate Post-Keynesian and Marxian monetary theories — that is, it basically develops one section of the preceding paper into a fuller treatment. He also contributed the first chapter to the collection Marx’s Theory of Money: Modern Appraisals. (Some of the other authors in that volume can also give a sense of some of the opposing perspectives in the field.) Aeolius has issued a correction as of 21:36 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:this is a cool fuckin thread and cool fuckin book good fuckin job OP
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
1-03: Chapter 3 'I think this question of what is money, what is its function in society, is really something that is a mystery to everyone.' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB5lMud3gtA Chapter 3 is considered by Harvey the most difficult in the book and I can't say I 'got' all of it when reading ahead of the video. There were sections I struggled with and there were sections that seemed trivial, which is often an indication that you've missed something in a book like this. It covers the theory and operations of money, feat. the value-price distinction, credit, 'imaginary' value, money accumulation, etc. We also see our first glimpses of capitalist crisis, notably in the description of hoarding of money interrupting the commodity circuit. At the time 'Say's law' that held this was impossible, and this remained a popular opinion until the 1930s. Keynes and the Great Depression are normally credited with putting it to bed by liberal history, but Marx was well ahead of the game here. Later he describes generally the origin and nature of financial crisis. Both descriptions will be familiar to people who followed debates after the 2008 crisis. Timestamps: 0:02:35 - Chapter 3 0:08:00 - 3.1: The Measure of Values 0:30:50 - 3.2: The Means of Circulation 1:03:35 - 3.3: Money 1:35:50 - The apparent collapse of metallic money in the 70s, commodity bundles and money today. 1:44:45 - Q&A With this chapter we're through the traditionally difficult chapters and ready for the shorter second section where capital and labour-power enter the stage. If you're mired deeply and not making much progress, Harvey thinks a deep understanding isn't vital for understanding the rest of the book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Peel posted:We also see our first glimpses of capitalist crisis, notably in the description of hoarding of money interrupting the commodity circuit. At the time 'Say's law' that held this was impossible, and this remained a popular opinion until the 1930s. Keynes and the Great Depression are normally credited with putting it to bed by liberal history, but Marx was well ahead of the game here. fun fact: the 1933 draft of Keynes's General Theory directly referenced Marx's C-M-C/M-C-M' circuits in its critique of Say he was never satisfied with his final (1937) version for reasons he never elaborated upon, but i'm content to speculate that distancing himself from Marx may have played a role Aeolius has issued a correction as of 04:40 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Chapter 3 is good so far. Just over halfway through and I caught this:quote:Since gold does not disclose what has been transformed into it, everything, commodity or not, is convertible into gold. Everything becomes saleable and buyable. The circulation becomes the great social retort into which everything is thrown, to come out again as a gold-crystal. Not even are the bones of saints, and still less are more delicate res sacrosanctae, extra commercium hominum able to withstand this alchemy. I just thought that was a pretty poetic phrasing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
and i must meme posted:bee movie is actually reactionary anti-socialist propaganda I'm not taking the bait you can't make me watch bee movie
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
and i must meme posted:bee movie is actually reactionary anti-socialist propaganda Please compare and contrast with the reactionary anti-socialist propaganda film Wreck-It Ralph.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:I'm not taking the bait you can't make me watch bee movie the main bee sues the human race for exploiting bees and stealing their honey, and wins, the bees are free to use all of their honey, but it's ~upset the balance of nature~ so the bees become lazy and stop pollinating flowers the happy ending is when the humans go back to exploiting the bees
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
and i must meme posted:the main bee sues the human race for exploiting bees and stealing their honey, and wins, the bees are free to use all of their honey, but it's ~upset the balance of nature~ so the bees become lazy and stop pollinating flowers the flowers represent yachts & other luxuries, whoever sets things to the "good ending" (main bee?) represents bourgeois + labour aristocracy class collaboration. Maybe it's actually a maoist third worldist movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
and i must meme posted:the main bee sues the human race for exploiting bees and stealing their honey, and wins, the bees are free to use all of their honey, but it's ~upset the balance of nature~ so the bees become lazy and stop pollinating flowers Well, most accurately, the happy ending is when bees resume pollination. While humans do resume consumption of bee labor, bees seize the means of (legal) distribution granted to them from the earlier lawsuit, or at least this is supposed to be apparent by the sign where the human florist love-interest (weird) is selling "Bee Approved" honey. I definitely prefer looking at it this way, but maybe that's overly optimistic of me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
NNick posted:Value: I think it is safe to say the socially necessary labor time to produce a iPhone and Juicero is different. We can say it costs 20 hours for an iPhone and 10 for a Juicero. In other words, 1 iPhone=2 Juicero. It could also be 2 iPhone=1 Juicero. From what I understand, and I could be wrong, you can't express exchange value in terms of a price. I mean you technically could if you had a True price that reflected the objective value of the goods, but that's not the case in your example (or capitalism generally for that matter). Exchange value is meant to reflect the tradeoff between socially necessary labour-time between different commodities. Which you mention in the lead up to that, but I just wanted to clarify that for you because that's a potentially deadly mistake to make since it assumes a subjective determination of value. Anyways, am I alone in thinking that this book is really sort of psychedelic? The idea that "things" aren't, like, just "things" bro, they're social hieroglyphics that signify underlying labour is a trip to think about. When I walk into supermarkets I can't help but imagine all the factory worker's absent stares, vats, and sheet metal gizmos behind every thing anymore. Also, the idea that the preconditions of the nature of commodities just sort of naturally unfold into developments of money and stuff seems like it says something about free will that Marx doesn't comment on. Just a bunch of "woah" moments for me so far. almost there has issued a correction as of 05:45 on Apr 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
not only that, but the entire presentation of the things in the supermarket and their supposed worth is completely and utterly unrelated to their actual use-value thanks to the compounding forces of the various techniques used to distort their exchange-values relative to each other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Electric Owl posted:From what I understand, and I could be wrong, you can't express exchange value in terms of a price. I mean you technically could if you had a True price that reflected the objective value of the goods, but that's not the case in your example (or capitalism generally for that matter). Exchange value is meant to reflect the tradeoff between socially necessary labour-time between different commodities. Which you mention in the lead up to that, but I just wanted to clarify that for you because that's a potentially deadly mistake to make since it assumes a subjective determination of value. You are not alone!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 07:30
|
|
|
Electric Owl posted:From what I understand, and I could be wrong, you can't express exchange value in terms of a price. Small note: Price is exchange value, just expressed in terms of money instead of another commodity. But good post; it really does get nuts to contemplate the enormity of world-spanning supply chains behind even the most minute purchase, the class struggle underlying it all. Impermanent posted:not only that, but the entire presentation of the things in the supermarket and their supposed worth is completely and utterly unrelated to their actual use-value One thing that helped me get a handle on some of the ch. 1 distinctions is to disassociate "use-value" from "utility." Folks familiar with other economic theory generally try to just equate the two, when they're related but not congruent concepts. Utility is usually invoked to encapsulate a sense of relative preferences at a given moment, whereas use-value is something altogether more general and simple — is it useful, period? Note also Marx's use of language: things "are" use-values, rather than "have," as we might say with utility. In short, we're describing a category of product, rather than a property of a product. So saying something has a price unrelated to its use-value is a bit off the mark. Use-value is the qualitative aspect of a commodity, while value (which is outwardly expressed via exchange value and ultimately price) is the quantitative. This is actually the biggest problem with trying to think of use-value in terms of utility; utility can be conceived of in a quantitative sense, whether cardinal or ordinal. The only quantitative interpretation of use-value, on the other hand, is binary, or boolean if you prefer — either it is or it's not. Aeolius has issued a correction as of 08:03 on Apr 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
Who needs Capital, when you can just read Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-24/cracking-the-mystery-of-labor-s-falling-share-of-gdp
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Who needs Capital, when you can just read Bloomberg: quote:For decades, macroeconomic models assumed that labor and capital took home roughly constant portions of output -- labor got just a bit less than two-thirds of the pie, capital slightly more than one-third. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:Small note: Price is exchange value, just expressed in terms of money instead of another commodity. Sure, but since NNick says that you can produce 2 Juicero in the time it'd take to produce 1 iPhone then wouldn't a true price that reflected the exchange value be $350 for the Juicero and $700 for the iPhone? Not $700 equally? I understand how in a system where money already exists you could just as well express this value in dollars but this specific example seems divorced from an objective determination of the commodity's value, no?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:21 |
|
|
Electric Owl posted:Sure, but since NNick says that you can produce 2 Juicero in the time it'd take to produce 1 iPhone then wouldn't a true price that reflected the exchange value be $350 for the Juicero and $700 for the iPhone? Not $700 equally? I understand how in a system where money already exists you could just as well express this value in dollars but this specific example seems divorced from an objective determination of the commodity's value, no? You are slightly correct. Price ratios are related to value ratios but they are rarely equivalent in reality. I've been watching the Kapitalism 101 series in my spare time ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqOtQM8PCvA ) and here's my understanding: If juiceros cost 2 hrs of labor, and an iphone costs 1, and they both have a price of $700, it is because the price signal is indicating that more labor (in total) should be used on iphones than juiceros and/or less labor (in total) should be spent on juiceros. This would happen naturally as capital is invested into iphones (or at least iphone competitors) and investment leaves the production of juiceros. Thus, the price of juiceros would rise as fewer juiceros end up on the shelves and the price of iphones lowers as more need to be sold, and this would occur until the price of juiceros rises to at least double the price of iphones. Ruzihm has issued a correction as of 20:13 on Apr 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 20:11
|
|