Okay, so: Prices allocate labor amongst the varying productive endeavors, and yet, at the same time, prices are determined by the degree of (SN) labor employed during such productions.This seems to be circular, and it yields an infinite regress. Additionally, how is the value of labor, i.e. wages, determined?
I’m actually not quite sure what you’re saying. If you could elaborate I’ll comment further.
Labour, I merely said that the market was the method of distribution.
You’ve descended into absurdity. We have NEVER distributed gamma rays amongst the population.
It’s not an assertion, it’s a definition.
Yes actually, with the explicit permission of the author. I did say I would be re-using someone elses analysis on Commodity fetishism in my first post. He explains this far better than I
On the contrary, we posit that they are NOT the same, if you continue reading you will see that was said.
This is precisely correct, if there’s a large supply relative to demand, then production in that sphere will decrease and vice versa.
Capitalists do not produce anything, they do not have productive labour.
This is precisely what commodity fetishism is. Once you expose your commodities to the market they are completely outside of your control. Laws like supply and demand take over and determine how much you will get for your commodity, you have NO control over the market, you merely operate WITHIN it. The market controls YOUR actions. So this is a literal fetish. whereas the religious fetish held no objective power over man, this man-create market DOES hold power over man.
Precisely.
Spot on.
Because, any type of labour can be transformed into another type of labour. 3 hours of labour at tailoring is exchanged with 3 hours of labour in weaving.
What is essentially being exchange is, LABOUR. Though in the case of goods, dead labour. If you could make what you wanted to consume in equal amount of time that it took you to create the commodity you did bring to market, you would have no need to produce for exchange to begin with. But you do, and equivilants are therefor exchanged.
Yes yes your commodity has 0 use-value for you except as a method of exchange. What you DO with this specifically is irrelevant to our analysis and hence not subjective.
The concept of Value is what sets Marx apart from all of his peers. Marx saw value as a set of social relationships between people. When people exchanged commodities in terms of price, the underlying relationship he referred to as value. So when you engage in exchange, you are having a value relationship. But what makes them need to exchange? Well both have something the other wants. The products they created must have been EXPLICITLY made for exchange, else they would have used them already. So we have at the outset isolated individuals with a social division of labour (if you could make what you wanted to in an equal time it took you to make your commodity, you would’ve done that.). Since you have isolated spheres of production, there must be a way to trade off the products of labour, and that is value relationships. Labour is essentially what you are trading in an exchange.
I do agree that I don’t think we are referring to the same thing when we use the term “value.” When Marxists say it (genuine Marxists, which are basically non-existent) we are refer to SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS between people.
Ehh, private labour is where you utilise the product of your labour, whether by exchange or use. Yea social labour is where you willingly surrender your labour to society rendering it social rather than private.
Precisely!
Drop your preconceptions, forget everything you’ve heard “Marxists” say. We do NOT think that there are “evils of commodity production.” NEVER have we held that. In fact, the entire purpose of describing commodity fetishism is to show that the MARKET is what controls everything. We do not blame the Capitalists, they are acting as they must within Capitalism.
Commodity fetishism describes the fact that commodities will not always be priced according to their value, along with other things. The reason why value =/= price on an individual scale is because of various market forces, supply and demand etc.
Your second question is correct.
It’s, related, in a way. The price of a commodity (considered OUTSIDE of market forces liek supply and demand, monopoly etc. In otherwords, value) is determined by the socially necessary labour-time to produce it, AT THAT GIVEN TIME PERIOD (this dispells the whol “transformation problem”)
Right, we use value to DESCRIBE prices, not determine them.
I don’t know what you mean by “in other economic democracy.” but aside from that yes.
It’s not meant to be a criticism of Capitalism. Marx was merely investigating Capitalism. We analyse EVERYTHING about Capitalism, whether or not we can turn it into propaganda.
Dear christ do NOT get me started on that. Take my advice and merely forget everything you already think about Communism.
It SEEMS circular, but only if you think of Capitalism a a static system. Capitalism is a dynamic and constantly changing system.
That is a discussion for another chapter 
You’ve descended into absurdity. We have NEVER distributed gamma rays amongst the population.
Nor have we distributed labor. People work for a living. They don’t “distribute their labor amongst the population.”
It’s not an assertion, it’s a definition.
As if that makes your case better.
Bottom line, if this is what Marxism is based on, no wonder every country who ever had the misfortune to live under it faced starvation.
I’m retiring from this thread. I wonder how many people feel better about Marxian theory now they have read your posts.
So, you think in hunter-gatherer society, everyone fended for themselves with no one helping each other out? you think slavery was not in order to take advantage of the labour of the slaves?
Marxism is not a system. Communism has never existed.
“Marxism is not a system. Communism has never existed.”
Kind of like the kingdom of God, huh?
You’ve descended into absurdity. We have NEVER distributed gamma rays amongst the population.
I can’t wait till we do… Please let me get x-ray vision. It’ll be better than the agonizing death everyone else will get
Arugment by definition? I’m convinced.
No true Scotsman? And who said anything about a “system” or “communism” anyway?
Well you also said that “the MARKET is what controls everything”. Presumably, everything except Value?
Forget Marx for a second. How do you value things? When you go to a store do you look at labels for info on the labor-hours expended in making each product before you ascertain its value to you? What would the labor-hour label of a **pencil **contain?
You’re beyond help.
Do you also think I meant that the market controls the mating cycle of rhinos?
Pizza von Marx,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Mao Zedong alleviate unemployment by having people dig ditches and then having them fill them in? I think I’ve heard that somewhere before. Regardless, would this be a policy you would agree with, since i it “distributes labor”?
The policy has nothing to do with establishing socialism whether in helping or hurting it. The only way it would help or hurt is indirectly via a raise or decrease in class-consciousness and I’m not very keen on the specific circumstances to know whether or not it raised or decreased it, but overall I’d say, I don’t really care what bourgeoise politicians do.
That was an impressive dodge. This obviously isn’t your first rodeo. Would you or would you not advocate the digging of ditches and filling them in again, and why?
What I say is irrelevant, I have no political power, and I don’t intend to.