“different concept of materialism.”
Historical Materialism is the best tool we have to work with, for this see G A Cohen’s book “A Marxist Theory of History.” Excellent book.
“Are you here to argue with libertarians or Hegel?”
I’m here for shits and giggles as the OP states.
“How do you define “currency”?”
A Value-form that acts as a means of circulation and as a repository of value.
“the transformation problem?”
Here we go. I argue that there IS no transformation problem. As Andrew Kliman has recently pointed out a Temporal Single System Interpretation of Marx eliminates this problem. Because I’m feeling particularly lazy this morning, I shall merely link you here.
You mean…quivver revolutionary action? Hahaha.
No, but seriously, I’d like to know how your objective theory of value isn’t viciously circular.
Paging an Andrew Cain!
Ok OP, first round - your thoughts on the division of labor?
What is your conception of it?
Is it good or bad? Why?
What swayed you to become Left Communist?
“You mean…quivver revolutionary action? Hahaha.”
I’d like to note the first thing that could possibly be interpreted as a slander was posted directed towards me.
As a Marxist I tend to face this sort of crap a lot, do not be surprised when I match abuse for abuse.
“No, but seriously, I’d like to know how your objective theory of value isn’t viciously circular.”
How would it be in the first place?
“I oppose the existence of Exchange-value, and as such seek to abolish currency.”
Why do you want the most of humanity to die?
What is your rebuttal to this?
“your thoughts on the division of labor?”
As indicated above it is the necesary precondition for Capitalism, and therefor the necessary precondition for Socialism/Communism (They’re the same thing, and if anyone tells you otherwise you’ll know their tendency has Leninist influences in it somewhere.)
“What is your conception of it?”
Uhh, it seems pretyt hard to disagree over this… People do different type of work? >_>
“Is it good or bad? Why?”
Good, it allowed us to advance from Feudalism to Capitalism and has paved the way for Socialism/Communism.
“What swayed you to become Left Communist?”
I hold fast to the quote listed in my signature, LeftComm is really one of the only tendencies to actually do that.
In your definition, is that a metaphor or do you maintain that value literately exists in the currency?
Uh, don’t you mean libel? I’m just kidding around, anyway.
Here’s what I mean by circularity: using objective factors to determine objective value and using objective value to value objective factors.
“Why do you want the most of humanity to die?”
Why do you insist on turning a rational discussion to shit?
“What is your rebuttal to this?”
I’m only at about 2 minutes in and I can already tell you this guy is attacking Primmies not Commies.
“In your definition, is that a metaphor or do you maintain that value literately exists in the currency?”
Value is an abstraction from Use-value.
“For individuals to produce exchange-values, the products they produce must be use-values not to themselves but to other individuals, that is, social use-values.”
Exchange-values are products with prices? Use-values means consumer have a use for them meaning them want them?
“Labour which creates social use-values is social labour,”
This seems to say a product’s value is due to labor. The literature I previously cited disagreed.
“presupposes a social division of labour which forces individuals to rely on the production of society to satisfy their needs.”
Are people putting guns to the heads of laborers, ordering them to obey society, or do the laborers choose to remain in society?
“I do not oppose just laissez-faire Capitalism,”
Why?
“but all forms of Capital accumulation EG the M-C-M accumulation cycle, I oppose the existence of Exchange-value, and as such seek to abolish currency.”
Define “EG the M-C-M accumulation cycle” and exchange value. Does currency and money differ?
“It’s in my class interests.”
You believe you are being exploited by a capitalist system, yet I and others are saying that basis of communism (exploitation tied to the labor theory of value) is wrong.
“This means the working class is going to decide how society post-revolution is set-up and not me, this means what I tell you is going to be as vague as possible so as to remain true.”
Austrian economist Robert P. “Bob” Murphy explained the Austrian view on resource calculation:
The socialist central planners would suffer from a calculation problem, meaning that they couldn’t evaluate whether a given enterprise — such as a car factory or a farm — was making efficient use of society’s scarce resources. Sure, the car factory might be cranking out vehicles that the comrades enjoyed driving. But that alone is not enough to prove that the car factory is economically efficient. For all the planners know, the resources (steel, rubber, labor hours) going into the production of the cars could be diverted into other lines, increasing the production of items that the comrades enjoy even more than the cars.
The market economy solves this problem effortlessly through market prices and the profit-and-loss test. If a car factory is using up resources that consumers would prefer go into alternate sectors, this fact manifests itself objectively when the accountant announces that the car factory is “losing money.” After all, to be unprofitable simply means that the car factory cannot earn enough revenues from its customers in order to pay the prices for resources that other entrepreneurs are able to afford. That is the sense in which consumers are “voting” (through their spending decisions) that the car factory either reform or shut down.
In Mises’s view, the fundamental superiority of the market economy over socialism was not that entrepreneurs happened to be bold innovators, while government bureaucrats were dull yes-men. No, the problem was an institutional one. In the market economy, the factors of production are privately owned, which allows the generation of market prices for every unit of every resource. Thus people in the private sector get immediate and constant feedback on the success or failure of their operations. There is nothing analogous in government, because its “customers” cannot withhold their purchases if they don’t like the “services.”
“your thoughts on the division of labor?”
As indicated above it is the necesary precondition for Capitalism
For civilisation. And it’d be more accurate to call it state-capitalism, or mercantilism.
Marx conflated between these two definitions, i.e true capitalism, and mercantilism.
“Good, it allowed us to advance from Feudalism to Capitalism and has paved the way for Socialism/Communism.”
lol! Feudalism → Mercantilism → Socialism/Communism (Soviet Union failed, right?) Why was that?
"Uh, don’t you mean libel? I’m just kidding around, anyway. "
My apologies then.
“Here’s what I mean by circularity: using objective factors to determine objective value and using objective value to value objective factors.”
I don’t follow.
Why do you insist on turning a rational discussion to shit?"
Mate, you’re the one who requested “shits & giggles.” Just giving you what you said you wanted.
I’m only at about 2 minutes in and I can already tell you this guy is attacking Primmies not Commies.
And what do you believe the difference is? This is a dodge. You want to abolish currency and exchange value. What’s your response to that?
Is that to say that use-value is tangible?
Also, do you object to value being subjective?
Are you saying that the quote “‘The emancipation of the working class must be an act of the working class.’” swayed you to become Left Communist? If so, why do you maintain that “[w]ords do little to sway people […]”?