Political Crossfire Forums

[BobbyO]

Quote: "The people" are free. That is the whole point of anarchism. Nobody decides whats right and whats wrong.

As to democracy, I don't neccesarily believe that every single decision made under democracy is inherently justifed but democracy, in the form understood by anarchists, is simply the best way to accomadate the needs of the collective while allowing the individual people to have their say. It's not limited to simply a vote, it can be argued, debated etc. [/quote]

I would submit that the term "democracy" is the most misunderstood. The note above, I think, demonstrates it.

Democracy is about the majority ruling the minority. In order for democracy to work, there must be a general consensus on the issues, a "common framework," in society so to speak. In other words, in a democracy, people cannot do whatever it is they want to do, because otherwise the democracy cannot function. There is no "meeting of the minds." Moreover, in a functioning democracy, the minority must submit to the majority. A democracy cannot function if the losers are free to reject the decisions and dictates (and yes, when governmnt makes a decision, even democratically decided, its decisions are dictates) of the government. It is absurd to suppose that an anarchial society can be ordered democratically.

[Kindred]

Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Quote: This would be why Marx was an idiot. Anything that ties in neatly to Marx's theory of surplus value labour is illogical since his theory is illogical. Something is worth as much work as is put into it? What obvious rubbish.

Yeah, that's great.......only, that is not Marx's theory of surplus value. Sorry. That particular theory focuses on profits, more specifically, what proportion of profits the worker gets as compared with the capitalist; the difference between the two is the 'surplus value' which the worker produced, but did not retain.

Furthermore, Marx never said that something is worth the amount that is put into it. The only thing that comes close to that is his acknowledgment that capital is the result of a confluence between past labour (stored afterwards as ‘capital’) and natural resources.

If Marx didn't claim to have an objective measure of value then how could he claim something is a surplus? You're going to have to do better than finely worded dodges, Kindred.
Suplus value is the economic difference between the income that a worker produces and the income that a worker earns in the form of a wage. There. It's that simple.

Do you have an objective measure of 'the income the worker produces' or the value of the worker working? You've contradicted yourself because you don't even understand your own terminology.

Arg. You are clearly confused between Marx's surplus value and Ricardo's labour theory of price. The 'objective measure' is one degree of the profit. Okay, keeping it simple here. When a worker makes ten units (of whatever) which sell for $14 a piece, the capitalist has made $140 (not taking into account costs other than wages). If the worker receives $7 an hour, and works for 10 hours to produce ten units, the surplus value is $70; that is the value that the worker creates, but does not receive himself. In effect, Marx argues, he is slaving himself to the capitalist once he reproduces his own wage, and continues to produce past that point.

Very simple ideas, funny how you were obviously oblivious to them.

No, you are confused, there is no justification for the bit I've put in bold. Go back and rethink your 'simple ideas'.

Ha! Nice try, but you cannot escape the fact that you've been found out not understanding Marx for the second time.

PEACE

[The Impeacher]

Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Quote: This would be why Marx was an idiot. Anything that ties in neatly to Marx's theory of surplus value labour is illogical since his theory is illogical. Something is worth as much work as is put into it? What obvious rubbish.

Yeah, that's great.......only, that is not Marx's theory of surplus value. Sorry. That particular theory focuses on profits, more specifically, what proportion of profits the worker gets as compared with the capitalist; the difference between the two is the 'surplus value' which the worker produced, but did not retain.

Furthermore, Marx never said that something is worth the amount that is put into it. The only thing that comes close to that is his acknowledgment that capital is the result of a confluence between past labour (stored afterwards as ‘capital’) and natural resources.

If Marx didn't claim to have an objective measure of value then how could he claim something is a surplus? You're going to have to do better than finely worded dodges, Kindred.
Suplus value is the economic difference between the income that a worker produces and the income that a worker earns in the form of a wage. There. It's that simple.

Do you have an objective measure of 'the income the worker produces' or the value of the worker working? You've contradicted yourself because you don't even understand your own terminology.

Arg. You are clearly confused between Marx's surplus value and Ricardo's labour theory of price. The 'objective measure' is one degree of the profit. Okay, keeping it simple here. When a worker makes ten units (of whatever) which sell for $14 a piece, the capitalist has made $140 (not taking into account costs other than wages). If the worker receives $7 an hour, and works for 10 hours to produce ten units, the surplus value is $70; that is the value that the worker creates, but does not receive himself. In effect, Marx argues, he is slaving himself to the capitalist once he reproduces his own wage, and continues to produce past that point.

Very simple ideas, funny how you were obviously oblivious to them.

No, you are confused, there is no justification for the bit I've put in bold. Go back and rethink your 'simple ideas'.

Ha! Nice try, but you cannot escape the fact that you've been found out not understanding Marx for the second time.

PEACE

3rd time... ;)

[Robin Hood]

Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Quote: This would be why Marx was an idiot. Anything that ties in neatly to Marx's theory of surplus value labour is illogical since his theory is illogical. Something is worth as much work as is put into it? What obvious rubbish.

Yeah, that's great.......only, that is not Marx's theory of surplus value. Sorry. That particular theory focuses on profits, more specifically, what proportion of profits the worker gets as compared with the capitalist; the difference between the two is the 'surplus value' which the worker produced, but did not retain.

Furthermore, Marx never said that something is worth the amount that is put into it. The only thing that comes close to that is his acknowledgment that capital is the result of a confluence between past labour (stored afterwards as ‘capital’) and natural resources.

If Marx didn't claim to have an objective measure of value then how could he claim something is a surplus? You're going to have to do better than finely worded dodges, Kindred.
Suplus value is the economic difference between the income that a worker produces and the income that a worker earns in the form of a wage. There. It's that simple.

Do you have an objective measure of 'the income the worker produces' or the value of the worker working? You've contradicted yourself because you don't even understand your own terminology.

Arg. You are clearly confused between Marx's surplus value and Ricardo's labour theory of price. The 'objective measure' is one degree of the profit. Okay, keeping it simple here. When a worker makes ten units (of whatever) which sell for $14 a piece, the capitalist has made $140 (not taking into account costs other than wages). If the worker receives $7 an hour, and works for 10 hours to produce ten units, the surplus value is $70; that is the value that the worker creates, but does not receive himself. In effect, Marx argues, he is slaving himself to the capitalist once he reproduces his own wage, and continues to produce past that point.

Very simple ideas, funny how you were obviously oblivious to them.

No, you are confused, there is no justification for the bit I've put in bold. Go back and rethink your 'simple ideas'.

Ha! Nice try, but you cannot escape the fact that you've been found out not understanding Marx for the second time.

PEACE

No, evidently I understand Marx as my straight to the point objection showed. An objection that you can only answer with your idiot reasonless reply. Explain why the worker creates that value or admit that you, and Marx, were wrong.

[The Impeacher]

Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Quote: This would be why Marx was an idiot. Anything that ties in neatly to Marx's theory of surplus value labour is illogical since his theory is illogical. Something is worth as much work as is put into it? What obvious rubbish.

Yeah, that's great.......only, that is not Marx's theory of surplus value. Sorry. That particular theory focuses on profits, more specifically, what proportion of profits the worker gets as compared with the capitalist; the difference between the two is the 'surplus value' which the worker produced, but did not retain.

Furthermore, Marx never said that something is worth the amount that is put into it. The only thing that comes close to that is his acknowledgment that capital is the result of a confluence between past labour (stored afterwards as ‘capital’) and natural resources.

If Marx didn't claim to have an objective measure of value then how could he claim something is a surplus? You're going to have to do better than finely worded dodges, Kindred.
Suplus value is the economic difference between the income that a worker produces and the income that a worker earns in the form of a wage. There. It's that simple.

Do you have an objective measure of 'the income the worker produces' or the value of the worker working? You've contradicted yourself because you don't even understand your own terminology.

Arg. You are clearly confused between Marx's surplus value and Ricardo's labour theory of price. The 'objective measure' is one degree of the profit. Okay, keeping it simple here. When a worker makes ten units (of whatever) which sell for $14 a piece, the capitalist has made $140 (not taking into account costs other than wages). If the worker receives $7 an hour, and works for 10 hours to produce ten units, the surplus value is $70; that is the value that the worker creates, but does not receive himself. In effect, Marx argues, he is slaving himself to the capitalist once he reproduces his own wage, and continues to produce past that point.

Very simple ideas, funny how you were obviously oblivious to them.

No, you are confused, there is no justification for the bit I've put in bold. Go back and rethink your 'simple ideas'.

Ha! Nice try, but you cannot escape the fact that you've been found out not understanding Marx for the second time.

PEACE

No, evidently I understand Marx as my straight to the point objection showed. An objection that you can only answer with your idiot reasonless reply. Explain why the worker creates that value or admit that you, and Marx, were wrong.

That an intelligent response looks idiotic to you is most humorous. Let me hold your hand, mmm'kay? REAL SIMPLE FOR YOU.

LABOR = VALUE

VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE TO THE MARKET PLACE, COST + PROFIT MARGIN

NOTE: THERE MAY NOT BE A PROFIT IN ALL CASES

WHEN THERE IS A PROFIT, THAT VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE DUE TO THE MARKET PLACE AND THUS IT GIVES A SURPLUS VALUE TO A PRODUCT OF LABOR, AKA PROFIT, TO THE CAPITALIST. THE VALUE OF THE PRODUCT HAS NO BEARING ON THE LABOR TRANSACTION THAT HAS ALREADY OCCURED, THUS THE "WAGE SLAVE."

Not hard to understand, if you actually want to understand. You probably also don't know that Marx, in fact, popularized the very term "capitalism" which you seem so fond of.

[Robin Hood]

The Impeacher wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Quote: This would be why Marx was an idiot. Anything that ties in neatly to Marx's theory of surplus value labour is illogical since his theory is illogical. Something is worth as much work as is put into it? What obvious rubbish.

Yeah, that's great.......only, that is not Marx's theory of surplus value. Sorry. That particular theory focuses on profits, more specifically, what proportion of profits the worker gets as compared with the capitalist; the difference between the two is the 'surplus value' which the worker produced, but did not retain.

Furthermore, Marx never said that something is worth the amount that is put into it. The only thing that comes close to that is his acknowledgment that capital is the result of a confluence between past labour (stored afterwards as ‘capital’) and natural resources.

If Marx didn't claim to have an objective measure of value then how could he claim something is a surplus? You're going to have to do better than finely worded dodges, Kindred.
Suplus value is the economic difference between the income that a worker produces and the income that a worker earns in the form of a wage. There. It's that simple.

Do you have an objective measure of 'the income the worker produces' or the value of the worker working? You've contradicted yourself because you don't even understand your own terminology.

Arg. You are clearly confused between Marx's surplus value and Ricardo's labour theory of price. The 'objective measure' is one degree of the profit. Okay, keeping it simple here. When a worker makes ten units (of whatever) which sell for $14 a piece, the capitalist has made $140 (not taking into account costs other than wages). If the worker receives $7 an hour, and works for 10 hours to produce ten units, the surplus value is $70; that is the value that the worker creates, but does not receive himself. In effect, Marx argues, he is slaving himself to the capitalist once he reproduces his own wage, and continues to produce past that point.

Very simple ideas, funny how you were obviously oblivious to them.

No, you are confused, there is no justification for the bit I've put in bold. Go back and rethink your 'simple ideas'.

Ha! Nice try, but you cannot escape the fact that you've been found out not understanding Marx for the second time.

PEACE

No, evidently I understand Marx as my straight to the point objection showed. An objection that you can only answer with your idiot reasonless reply. Explain why the worker creates that value or admit that you, and Marx, were wrong.

That an intelligent response looks idiotic to you is most humorous. Let me hold your hand, mmm'kay? REAL SIMPLE FOR YOU.

LABOR = VALUE

VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE TO THE MARKET PLACE, COST + PROFIT MARGIN

NOTE: THERE MAY NOT BE A PROFIT IN ALL CASES

WHEN THERE IS A PROFIT, THAT VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE DUE TO THE MARKET PLACE AND THUS IT GIVES A SURPLUS VALUE TO A PRODUCT OF LABOR, AKA PROFIT, TO THE CAPITALIST. THE VALUE OF THE PRODUCT HAS NO BEARING ON THE LABOR TRANSACTION THAT HAS ALREADY OCCURED, THUS THE "WAGE SLAVE."

Not hard to understand, if you actually want to understand. You probably also don't know that Marx, in fact, popularized the very term "capitalism" which you seem so fond of.

So your argument runs: value = labour and labour = value, which leads to a host of conclusions. Unfortunately your starting premise is ridiculous, and your omittance of a justifcation here is pretty much your acceptance of that fact.


Kindred: Come on, try and justify your bit....

[jawsome]

FinnMacCool wrote: Quote:
No one decides what is wrong or right? That can't be, as "the people" have made collective decisions as to what the collective will do and what people must consent to if they wish to live in said collective. That, if you ask me, is deciding what is "right," as they would choose other ways if they felt it "wrong."

I don't think you really understand.

A collective is nothing more then a group of people who have some set goal, and in anarchism this usually means producing something.

It has nothing to do with abiding by the rules of the collective or anything like that. Nobody really "lives" in the collective. They might work for a collective though, if they so desire.

It's true that there tend to be "rules" in anarchism but they are very loose by definition. All rules can be defined as any action by an individual or group that infringes on a person's natural liberty is wrong.

So, in anarchist collectives--correct me if I'm wrong--you are saying there are no standards, rules, or guidelines whatsoever? If this is so, the confusion might be because I am thinking more along the lines of communist/socialist-collectives, not anarchistic.

I have volunteered to work at a collective music venue/semi-restaurant and talked to many people who consider themselves "collectivists" (people who live on collectives), and a lot seem to differ with your views.

[FinnMacCool]

Quote: So, in anarchist collectives--correct me if I'm wrong--you are saying there are no standards, rules, or guidelines whatsoever? If this is so, the confusion might be because I am thinking more along the lines of communist/socialist-collectives, not anarchistic.
In anarchism, there are a vauge kinda invisible set of unwritten rules but its only natural that such things would develop. Its more has to do with someones life and liberty, for example obviously murdering someone is not going to be allowed.

But as for the collectives, why should there be rules? There is no boss to make rules all they are doing is working because they want to.


Quote:
I have volunteered to work at a collective music venue/semi-restaurant and talked to many people who consider themselves "collectivists" (people who live on collectives), and a lot seem to differ with your views

Collectivism is different from anarchism. Collectivism means that they think that the collective is more important then the individual. YEs its true that they both advocate a socialist-esque economy but that doesn't make them similar. Anarchism is just saying that nobody has any rights over anyone or anything.

If you are really genuinely interested in what an anarchist society looks like, I would reccomend you do some research on the anarchist revolution in Spain, which is the best example of anarchism in action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution

The thing is that certain parts of Spain were using different types of anarchism. In the country, it was more anarcho-communist but in the industrial areas they were more anarcho-syndicalist, which is like unionism I guess.

I would also reccomend the Spanish Anarchists by Murray Bookchin, who sadly just passed away recently.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/187317604X/sr=8-1/qid=1155253836/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2087463-8701603?ie=UTF8

Also, Anarcho Syndicalism by Rudolph Rocker is basically a guideline to industrail-esque anarchism.

http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/rocker/sp001495/rocker_as1.html

And, if you can get through it, the Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin!

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html

There you go, get reading! lol

[The Impeacher]

Robin Hood wrote: The Impeacher wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Quote: This would be why Marx was an idiot. Anything that ties in neatly to Marx's theory of surplus value labour is illogical since his theory is illogical. Something is worth as much work as is put into it? What obvious rubbish.

Yeah, that's great.......only, that is not Marx's theory of surplus value. Sorry. That particular theory focuses on profits, more specifically, what proportion of profits the worker gets as compared with the capitalist; the difference between the two is the 'surplus value' which the worker produced, but did not retain.

Furthermore, Marx never said that something is worth the amount that is put into it. The only thing that comes close to that is his acknowledgment that capital is the result of a confluence between past labour (stored afterwards as ‘capital’) and natural resources.

If Marx didn't claim to have an objective measure of value then how could he claim something is a surplus? You're going to have to do better than finely worded dodges, Kindred.
Suplus value is the economic difference between the income that a worker produces and the income that a worker earns in the form of a wage. There. It's that simple.

Do you have an objective measure of 'the income the worker produces' or the value of the worker working? You've contradicted yourself because you don't even understand your own terminology.

Arg. You are clearly confused between Marx's surplus value and Ricardo's labour theory of price. The 'objective measure' is one degree of the profit. Okay, keeping it simple here. When a worker makes ten units (of whatever) which sell for $14 a piece, the capitalist has made $140 (not taking into account costs other than wages). If the worker receives $7 an hour, and works for 10 hours to produce ten units, the surplus value is $70; that is the value that the worker creates, but does not receive himself. In effect, Marx argues, he is slaving himself to the capitalist once he reproduces his own wage, and continues to produce past that point.

Very simple ideas, funny how you were obviously oblivious to them.

No, you are confused, there is no justification for the bit I've put in bold. Go back and rethink your 'simple ideas'.

Ha! Nice try, but you cannot escape the fact that you've been found out not understanding Marx for the second time.

PEACE

No, evidently I understand Marx as my straight to the point objection showed. An objection that you can only answer with your idiot reasonless reply. Explain why the worker creates that value or admit that you, and Marx, were wrong.

That an intelligent response looks idiotic to you is most humorous. Let me hold your hand, mmm'kay? REAL SIMPLE FOR YOU.

LABOR = VALUE

VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE TO THE MARKET PLACE, COST + PROFIT MARGIN

NOTE: THERE MAY NOT BE A PROFIT IN ALL CASES

WHEN THERE IS A PROFIT, THAT VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE DUE TO THE MARKET PLACE AND THUS IT GIVES A SURPLUS VALUE TO A PRODUCT OF LABOR, AKA PROFIT, TO THE CAPITALIST. THE VALUE OF THE PRODUCT HAS NO BEARING ON THE LABOR TRANSACTION THAT HAS ALREADY OCCURED, THUS THE "WAGE SLAVE."

Not hard to understand, if you actually want to understand. You probably also don't know that Marx, in fact, popularized the very term "capitalism" which you seem so fond of.

So your argument runs: value = labour and labour = value, which leads to a host of conclusions. Unfortunately your starting premise is ridiculous, and your omittance of a justifcation here is pretty much your acceptance of that fact.


Kindred: Come on, try and justify your bit....

It's not my premise, you fool.

Pray do tell, what value existed BEFORE labor? What, "host of conclusions" are you even imagining?


Value is a human creation, so pull your head out of your ass already.

[jawsome]

Impeacher, cool it down please. No need for insults. Thanks.



Also, maybe it was just skipped over and/or forgotten, but why hasn't anyone addressed my question regarding intellectual property and how it plays into an equation of value?

[Free Thinkr]

FinnMacCool wrote: In anarchism, there are a vauge kinda invisible set of unwritten rules but its only natural that such things would develop. Its more has to do with someones life and liberty, for example obviously murdering someone is not going to be allowed.
Not allowed by whom?

Quote: But as for the collectives, why should there be rules? There is no boss to make rules all they are doing is working because they want to.
Good luck finding people who want to clean toilets.

[Robin Hood]

The Impeacher wrote: Robin Hood wrote: The Impeacher wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Kindred wrote: Quote: This would be why Marx was an idiot. Anything that ties in neatly to Marx's theory of surplus value labour is illogical since his theory is illogical. Something is worth as much work as is put into it? What obvious rubbish.

Yeah, that's great.......only, that is not Marx's theory of surplus value. Sorry. That particular theory focuses on profits, more specifically, what proportion of profits the worker gets as compared with the capitalist; the difference between the two is the 'surplus value' which the worker produced, but did not retain.

Furthermore, Marx never said that something is worth the amount that is put into it. The only thing that comes close to that is his acknowledgment that capital is the result of a confluence between past labour (stored afterwards as ‘capital’) and natural resources.

If Marx didn't claim to have an objective measure of value then how could he claim something is a surplus? You're going to have to do better than finely worded dodges, Kindred.
Suplus value is the economic difference between the income that a worker produces and the income that a worker earns in the form of a wage. There. It's that simple.

Do you have an objective measure of 'the income the worker produces' or the value of the worker working? You've contradicted yourself because you don't even understand your own terminology.

Arg. You are clearly confused between Marx's surplus value and Ricardo's labour theory of price. The 'objective measure' is one degree of the profit. Okay, keeping it simple here. When a worker makes ten units (of whatever) which sell for $14 a piece, the capitalist has made $140 (not taking into account costs other than wages). If the worker receives $7 an hour, and works for 10 hours to produce ten units, the surplus value is $70; that is the value that the worker creates, but does not receive himself. In effect, Marx argues, he is slaving himself to the capitalist once he reproduces his own wage, and continues to produce past that point.

Very simple ideas, funny how you were obviously oblivious to them.

No, you are confused, there is no justification for the bit I've put in bold. Go back and rethink your 'simple ideas'.

Ha! Nice try, but you cannot escape the fact that you've been found out not understanding Marx for the second time.

PEACE

No, evidently I understand Marx as my straight to the point objection showed. An objection that you can only answer with your idiot reasonless reply. Explain why the worker creates that value or admit that you, and Marx, were wrong.

That an intelligent response looks idiotic to you is most humorous. Let me hold your hand, mmm'kay? REAL SIMPLE FOR YOU.

LABOR = VALUE

VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE TO THE MARKET PLACE, COST + PROFIT MARGIN

NOTE: THERE MAY NOT BE A PROFIT IN ALL CASES

WHEN THERE IS A PROFIT, THAT VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE DUE TO THE MARKET PLACE AND THUS IT GIVES A SURPLUS VALUE TO A PRODUCT OF LABOR, AKA PROFIT, TO THE CAPITALIST. THE VALUE OF THE PRODUCT HAS NO BEARING ON THE LABOR TRANSACTION THAT HAS ALREADY OCCURED, THUS THE "WAGE SLAVE."

Not hard to understand, if you actually want to understand. You probably also don't know that Marx, in fact, popularized the very term "capitalism" which you seem so fond of.

So your argument runs: value = labour and labour = value, which leads to a host of conclusions. Unfortunately your starting premise is ridiculous, and your omittance of a justifcation here is pretty much your acceptance of that fact.


Kindred: Come on, try and justify your bit....

It's not my premise, you fool.

Pray do tell, what value existed BEFORE labor? What, "host of conclusions" are you even imagining?


Value is a human creation, so pull your head out of your ass already.

You define 'labour' as that made by what you term a 'worker'. You also fail to differentiate between different values of labour. For instance, if I make a school and am stupid enough to only open it in the middle of the night - thus producing no value as there'd be no customers - then a capitalist comes along and tells me to open it during the day, a huge amount of value is produced. So since it was the 'capitalist's' labour that created value where there was none before should he get all the revenue?

Profit is what one gets for allocating one's resources efficiently, that requires work.

[jawsome]

Robin Hood- This is something I am trying to understand, as well.

In a Marxist/Socialist approach, how is innovation, intelligence, creativity, etc. taken into account in the determination of value? I can understand the argument in certain circumstances (e.g., a small farm based economy, or other sectors where there is little room for innovation and such), but not in more modern technological industries.

[The Impeacher]

Robin Hood wrote:

You define 'labour' as that made by what you term a 'worker'.

No, I have not. And this is not "my argument," it is Marx's, and once again its clear that you lack any knowledge or comprehension of it.

No one makes "labour" you fool. The worker labors, he does not "make labour" - do try to use your brain for a change. Hard work for you, to be certain.

Robin Hood wrote: You also fail to differentiate between different values of labour.

No, I did not fail to differentiate.

Robin Hood wrote: For instance, if I make a school and am stupid enough to only open it in the middle of the night - thus producing no value as there'd be no customers - then a capitalist comes along and tells me to open it during the day, a huge amount of value is produced. So since it was the 'capitalist's' labour that created value where there was none before should he get all the revenue?

I didn't realize you can "make a school" all by yourself. Again, start using your brain and I will respond in kind.

Clearly, thinking seems like too much "labour" or "work" for you to handle. There is ittle profit in responding further to your thoughtless posts.

Robin Hood wrote: Profit is what one gets for allocating one's resources efficiently, that requires work.

Thank you Captain Obvious, then why does the worker not get the profits?

Unless your grand thesis is that the capitalists merely having wealth is a form of "work"?

[The Impeacher]

jawsome wrote: Robin Hood- This is something I am trying to understand, as well.

In a Marxist/Socialist approach, how is innovation, intelligence, creativity, etc. taken into account in the determination of value? I can understand the argument in certain circumstances (e.g., a small farm based economy, or other sectors where there is little room for innovation and such), but not in more modern technological industries.

I fail to understand the question. Are you asking how a planned economy would handle that?

I also find trying to figure out how Marx would have felt about, say, pricing computer software a little daft.

The economist I would suggest you first look into for the development of National Economy's is Friederich List, who was the first I am aware of to postulate the importance of what he termed "the products of mentation" and the role the state plays via education and whatnot.

[Robin Hood]

jawsome wrote: Robin Hood- This is something I am trying to understand, as well.

In a Marxist/Socialist approach, how is innovation, intelligence, creativity, etc. taken into account in the determination of value? I can understand the argument in certain circumstances (e.g., a small farm based economy, or other sectors where there is little room for innovation and such), but not in more modern technological industries.

Just in time manafacturing is a classic example of a business innovation that increased productivity many time over. Invented in Japan it is the simple idea that the parts for the manafcturing process arrive 'just in time' thus leading to a huge decrease in costs (far less storage space and maintenance is needed). This idea, which took practically no labour to implement, was one of the most obvious reasons for the rise and rise of Japanese business in the 70s.

Marxist doctrine thinks it's irrelevant, but fortunately for Sony et al. and all the people who now benefit from far cheaper goods (everyone in the world, directly or indirectly) the CEOs didn't believe in outdated half-baked idiocies.

Your question seems completely correct. Marxism and socialism don't take account of creativity except that which requires pretty much no thought. Furthermore you've highlighted an extremely important point. As societies progress (within this term I include the economy) centralised control becomes harder and less efficient. The wave of socialism in the last century was made possible by technological progress that allowed one man to control parts of a country miles away (Louis XIV, when he sent a message, had to wait two weeks). It was simply feudalism pushed into a centralised state, or rather feudalism was kept provincially decentralised by the impossibility of central control due to distance. This force can really get any stronger. Counteracting it is the fact that our economy continually grows more complex. In this complexity we will find freedom, for a complex economy is far more difficult to control - effectively the growing intellectual territory acts in the same way as the physical territory did in the past. Moreover it is something that will only continue as society progresses.

Simply put: imagine being the absolute dictator of a simple farming country. You dictact how much is produced and who gets what. It's not too hard to imagine that you might run a fairly efficient economy. Now imagine doing the same job now - impossible. With all the bureaucrats in the world your country would be a poor slum. Thus adding to the afore-mentioned forces, I believe, is a growing gap between statist and non-statist efficiency. One that will grow into the future. Thus heavily weighting, and continually adding to the weight, people's preferences for a libertarian alternative. Of course it takes time for societally held ideas to reflect realities, and I feel that we've only just passed the crest of the socialist wave; however from here on out, forgetting distaster, we should progress towards an ever more libertarian future.

[The Impeacher]

Robin Hood wrote:
[...]
centralised state
[...]
Simply put: imagine being the absolute dictator
[...]
we should progress towards an ever more libertarian future.

Yes, you would want us to "progress" to the dictatorial hands of absolute corporate monopolies, completely unregulated and run by an untouchable and unaccountable oligarchy of rich elites.

Just more libertarian lunacy.... :roll:

[LetsGetReal]

Impeacher can you please name a "Monopoly" that existed without government support?

Labor does equal value but not in the sense that you have put it. If I create the job for the worker was that labor? If I give him the tools to perform the work, is that labor? If I supply the material to perform the work, was that labor? The real problem with marx is that intellectual abilities are null and void. They aren't worth 2 cents. I'm the one smart enough to put everything in motion but I should recieve nothing in return? Why is intellectual creativity/property worth nothing? Do I not work when in thought? My new idea to save the company millions to increase productivity, effeciency, and overall profits is worth nothing? Marx was an idealist who believed the workers were being repressed by a big brother type of guy who steals from them what is rightfully theirs. Not taking into account labor that cannot be seen.

Price is determinant upon Demand/Supply. Price doesn't always equal the value. Recognized value is the price consumers are willing to pay, but intrinsic value would be what the item is worth through costs. If making an item costed me 200$ then it is worth 200$, but if someone else sees a value higher then that they are willing to pay the intrinsic value is relinquished and the recognized value takes over. The customer sets the recognized value not the supplier.

[jawsome]

The Impeacher wrote: jawsome wrote: Robin Hood- This is something I am trying to understand, as well.

In a Marxist/Socialist approach, how is innovation, intelligence, creativity, etc. taken into account in the determination of value? I can understand the argument in certain circumstances (e.g., a small farm based economy, or other sectors where there is little room for innovation and such), but not in more modern technological industries.

I fail to understand the question. Are you asking how a planned economy would handle that?

I also find trying to figure out how Marx would have felt about, say, pricing computer software a little daft.

The economist I would suggest you first look into for the development of National Economy's is Friederich List, who was the first I am aware of to postulate the importance of what he termed "the products of mentation" and the role the state plays via education and whatnot.

No, I'm asking how intellectual property (maybe intellectual capital would make sense? I don't know) comes into play in the assessment of value.

I addressed this question to Kindred a few pages back, but he's a very busy dude with much more serious things to do, so I doubt he's had time to address it, so maybe you could have a go at it: Quote: How does one factor intellectual property into the equation? E.g., a worker might be able to make, say, a DVD player in an hour, getting paid $10 an hour. The DVD player makes a profit of $100 each. The surplus, if I understand correctly, is the $90 difference, right?

But how do you account for the creator of the product and his possible thought and work to go into the player?


Does innovation and intelligence go into the equation of assessing value in a Marxist critique? If so, how?

[LetsGetReal]

Jawsome your answer is no. It doesn't how could it that would bring about superiority in another person, that isn't allowed. The ability to be more intellectual, haha :lol:.