RoseVann
08-31-2009, 03:20 PM
If so, do those who are in positions of power (heirarchy) have the potential to abuse that power? Then it's just a matter of time until they do.
You're trading one problem for another. What's the point of going full circle when you know the circle is going to lead you back to your labor being exploited? We should be striving to get off the circle. There's a difference between "Communism" and "communism," that latter being the one I would desire, but we don't need a government (heirarchy) to do that.
What is Value?
Re: What is Value?
PinkoCommie
08-31-2009, 03:31 PM
and, as you are using this term "Heirarchy," it really doesn't mean much at all.
To me this is end to end BALONEY:
Modern civilisation faces three potentially catastrophic crises: (1) social breakdown, a shorthand term for rising rates of poverty, homelessness, crime, violence, alienation, drug and alcohol abuse, social isolation, political apathy, dehumanisation, the deterioration of community structures of self-help and mutual aid, etc.; (2) destruction of the planet's delicate ecosystems on which all complex forms of life depend; and (3) the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons.
Orthodox opinion, including that of Establishment “experts,” mainstream media, and politicians, generally regards these crises as separable, each having its own causes and therefore capable of being dealt with on a piecemeal basis, in isolation from the other two. Obviously, however, this “orthodox” approach isn't working, since the problems in question are getting worse. Unless some better approach is taken soon, we are clearly headed for disaster, either from catastrophic war, ecological Armageddon, or a descent into urban savagery — or all of the above.
Anarchism offers a unified and coherent way of making sense of these crises, by tracing them to a common source. This source is the principle of hierarchical authority, which underlies the major institutions of all “civilised” societies, whether capitalist or “communist.” Anarchist analysis therefore starts from the fact that all of our major institutions are in the form of hierarchies, i.e. organisations that concentrate power at the top of a pyramidal structure, such as corporations, government bureaucracies, armies, political parties, religious organisations, universities, etc. It then goes on to show how the authoritarian relations inherent in such hierarchies negatively affect individuals, their society, and culture. In the first part of this FAQ (sections A to E) we will present the anarchist analysis of hierarchical authority and its negative effects in greater detail.
It should not be thought, however, that anarchism is just a critique of modern civilisation, just “negative” or “destructive.” Because it is much more than that. For one thing, it is also a proposal for a free society. Emma Goldman expressed what might be called the “anarchist question” as follows: “The problem that confronts us today. . . is how to be one's self and yet in oneness with others, to feel deeply with all human beings and still retain one's own characteristic qualities.” [Red Emma Speaks, pp. 158-159] In other words, how can we create a society in which the potential for each individual is realised but not at the expense of others? In order to achieve this, anarchists envision a society in which, instead of being controlled “from the top down” through hierarchical structures of centralised power, the affairs of humanity will, to quote Benjamin Tucker, “be managed by individuals or voluntary associations.” [Anarchist Reader, p. 149] While later sections of the FAQ (sections I and J) will describe anarchism's positive proposals for organising society in this way, “from the bottom up,” some of the constructive core of anarchism will be seen even in the earlier sections. The positive core of anarchism can even be seen in the anarchist critique of such flawed solutions to the social question as Marxism and right-wing “libertarianism” ...
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/anarchis ... -anarchism
On edit and to a key source, Bookchin:
Hierarchy as such - be it in the form of ways of thinking, basic human relationships, social relations, and society's interaction with nature - could now be disengtangled from the traditional nexus of class analysis that concealed it under a carpet of economic interpretations of society.
This a plain retreat from theory/science into rhetoric, an omnipotent conception that both contains and transcends Marx, that is if one is more enamored of high flying rhetoric than material reality. Indeed, it appears that Bookchin wanted to be atop the hierarchy of leftist thinkers, a place he thought his little argument-ending claim that anyone rejecting his claim is therefore somehow in favor of this thing that transcends any real-world examples, this ontologically superior construct called "hierarchy."
It's sort of like having to have "faith." It just IS. And from there all other things spring.
Well, I'll pass. I'll pass especially as this leads to primitivism and all sorts of frankly made-up-shit that is on display just by perusing the titles of this guy's works.
08-31-2009, 03:31 PM
and, as you are using this term "Heirarchy," it really doesn't mean much at all.
To me this is end to end BALONEY:
Modern civilisation faces three potentially catastrophic crises: (1) social breakdown, a shorthand term for rising rates of poverty, homelessness, crime, violence, alienation, drug and alcohol abuse, social isolation, political apathy, dehumanisation, the deterioration of community structures of self-help and mutual aid, etc.; (2) destruction of the planet's delicate ecosystems on which all complex forms of life depend; and (3) the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons.
Orthodox opinion, including that of Establishment “experts,” mainstream media, and politicians, generally regards these crises as separable, each having its own causes and therefore capable of being dealt with on a piecemeal basis, in isolation from the other two. Obviously, however, this “orthodox” approach isn't working, since the problems in question are getting worse. Unless some better approach is taken soon, we are clearly headed for disaster, either from catastrophic war, ecological Armageddon, or a descent into urban savagery — or all of the above.
Anarchism offers a unified and coherent way of making sense of these crises, by tracing them to a common source. This source is the principle of hierarchical authority, which underlies the major institutions of all “civilised” societies, whether capitalist or “communist.” Anarchist analysis therefore starts from the fact that all of our major institutions are in the form of hierarchies, i.e. organisations that concentrate power at the top of a pyramidal structure, such as corporations, government bureaucracies, armies, political parties, religious organisations, universities, etc. It then goes on to show how the authoritarian relations inherent in such hierarchies negatively affect individuals, their society, and culture. In the first part of this FAQ (sections A to E) we will present the anarchist analysis of hierarchical authority and its negative effects in greater detail.
It should not be thought, however, that anarchism is just a critique of modern civilisation, just “negative” or “destructive.” Because it is much more than that. For one thing, it is also a proposal for a free society. Emma Goldman expressed what might be called the “anarchist question” as follows: “The problem that confronts us today. . . is how to be one's self and yet in oneness with others, to feel deeply with all human beings and still retain one's own characteristic qualities.” [Red Emma Speaks, pp. 158-159] In other words, how can we create a society in which the potential for each individual is realised but not at the expense of others? In order to achieve this, anarchists envision a society in which, instead of being controlled “from the top down” through hierarchical structures of centralised power, the affairs of humanity will, to quote Benjamin Tucker, “be managed by individuals or voluntary associations.” [Anarchist Reader, p. 149] While later sections of the FAQ (sections I and J) will describe anarchism's positive proposals for organising society in this way, “from the bottom up,” some of the constructive core of anarchism will be seen even in the earlier sections. The positive core of anarchism can even be seen in the anarchist critique of such flawed solutions to the social question as Marxism and right-wing “libertarianism” ...
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/anarchis ... -anarchism
On edit and to a key source, Bookchin:
Hierarchy as such - be it in the form of ways of thinking, basic human relationships, social relations, and society's interaction with nature - could now be disengtangled from the traditional nexus of class analysis that concealed it under a carpet of economic interpretations of society.
This a plain retreat from theory/science into rhetoric, an omnipotent conception that both contains and transcends Marx, that is if one is more enamored of high flying rhetoric than material reality. Indeed, it appears that Bookchin wanted to be atop the hierarchy of leftist thinkers, a place he thought his little argument-ending claim that anyone rejecting his claim is therefore somehow in favor of this thing that transcends any real-world examples, this ontologically superior construct called "hierarchy."
It's sort of like having to have "faith." It just IS. And from there all other things spring.
Well, I'll pass. I'll pass especially as this leads to primitivism and all sorts of frankly made-up-shit that is on display just by perusing the titles of this guy's works.
Re: What is Value?
meganmonkey
08-31-2009, 05:16 PM
is anti-ism-ism.
You can't just write everything off for being an -ism, and that is the root of the argument you are making.
As for the rest, well PC took care of that as far as I can tell.
This thread has really taken off this afternoon, I oughtta read the whole thing..
08-31-2009, 05:16 PM
is anti-ism-ism.
You can't just write everything off for being an -ism, and that is the root of the argument you are making.
As for the rest, well PC took care of that as far as I can tell.
This thread has really taken off this afternoon, I oughtta read the whole thing..
Re: What is Value?
curt_b
08-31-2009, 06:53 PM
You have a chance here to learn about what Marxism is, not what you think it may be. Agree, disagree it's all good, but this thought is the beginning:
"But again, "why value?" Because it is the atomic unit of economics."
Jumping forward to questions about hierarchy or abuse of power are because you have a preconception of "how power corrupts". If you let some of the people, here, start from an explanation of value, you'll at least be able to reject Marx for valid reasons, instead of a perceived potential for corruption.
08-31-2009, 06:53 PM
You have a chance here to learn about what Marxism is, not what you think it may be. Agree, disagree it's all good, but this thought is the beginning:
"But again, "why value?" Because it is the atomic unit of economics."
Jumping forward to questions about hierarchy or abuse of power are because you have a preconception of "how power corrupts". If you let some of the people, here, start from an explanation of value, you'll at least be able to reject Marx for valid reasons, instead of a perceived potential for corruption.
Re: What is Value?
anaxarchos
08-31-2009, 06:54 PM
... over and over again... without explanation or elaboration.
Your record is stuck.
Kick it.
Meanwhile, all you have achieved is a defense of the status quo. Why trade it in?
08-31-2009, 06:54 PM
... over and over again... without explanation or elaboration.
Your record is stuck.
Kick it.
Meanwhile, all you have achieved is a defense of the status quo. Why trade it in?
Re: What is Value?
Dhalgren
08-31-2009, 07:36 PM
The opposite of freedom is understanding.
Do you think that the owners are just going to roll over and give up? You can't start out with no classes, you have to work toward it. If you give up before you start, the bosses have already won...
08-31-2009, 07:36 PM
The opposite of freedom is understanding.
Do you think that the owners are just going to roll over and give up? You can't start out with no classes, you have to work toward it. If you give up before you start, the bosses have already won...
Re: What is Value?
anaxarchos
08-31-2009, 07:48 PM
... without any of the subtlety of the old man.
1) Capitalism presents wealth as an "immense accumulation of commodities", its unit being a single commodity. (Remember, a commodity is a "thing", tangible or not, produced for exchange)
2) A commodity is, in the first place, something that satisfies some human want or need. Otherwise it would not be produced, because no exchange would take place.
3) This inherent usefulness of commodities, we call use-value. But the usefulness of commodities is not abstract. It comes from their properties - their quantity or quality - and that usefulness has no existence apart from those specific properties.
4) BUT, commodities don't simply satisfy some want or need. They also exchange with each other. More, they exchange with each other in specific quantities. Thus it appears that as exchange-values, we are measuring something inherent to all commodities, an aspect of their basic properties.
5) And here we have a contradiction... because, exchange value is not based on the basic properties of commodities which make them use-values. Commodities as use-values share nothing in common which would explain their exchange-value. They do not trade by virtue of their weight, their size, their color, the nature of the hierarchy of wants that they satisfy, their classification or anything else. Quite the contrary, smaller, less "important", lighter commodities often exchange more dearly.
6) Apparently, commodities all share something in common with each other that is completely abstracted away from their physical properties, the purpose which they are meant to satisfy, or anything else related to the specific properties of each commodity. That "something" appearing in exchange is apparently characterised by a "total abstraction from use-value".
7) But if we "...leave out of consideration the use-value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labor."
We have now covered the first three pages of Section 1 of Chapter I of Part I of Volume I of Capital.
Two questions:
Is this clear?
Is this true... is it inherently, logically, indisputably true?
08-31-2009, 07:48 PM
... without any of the subtlety of the old man.
1) Capitalism presents wealth as an "immense accumulation of commodities", its unit being a single commodity. (Remember, a commodity is a "thing", tangible or not, produced for exchange)
2) A commodity is, in the first place, something that satisfies some human want or need. Otherwise it would not be produced, because no exchange would take place.
3) This inherent usefulness of commodities, we call use-value. But the usefulness of commodities is not abstract. It comes from their properties - their quantity or quality - and that usefulness has no existence apart from those specific properties.
4) BUT, commodities don't simply satisfy some want or need. They also exchange with each other. More, they exchange with each other in specific quantities. Thus it appears that as exchange-values, we are measuring something inherent to all commodities, an aspect of their basic properties.
5) And here we have a contradiction... because, exchange value is not based on the basic properties of commodities which make them use-values. Commodities as use-values share nothing in common which would explain their exchange-value. They do not trade by virtue of their weight, their size, their color, the nature of the hierarchy of wants that they satisfy, their classification or anything else. Quite the contrary, smaller, less "important", lighter commodities often exchange more dearly.
6) Apparently, commodities all share something in common with each other that is completely abstracted away from their physical properties, the purpose which they are meant to satisfy, or anything else related to the specific properties of each commodity. That "something" appearing in exchange is apparently characterised by a "total abstraction from use-value".
7) But if we "...leave out of consideration the use-value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labor."
We have now covered the first three pages of Section 1 of Chapter I of Part I of Volume I of Capital.
Two questions:
Is this clear?
Is this true... is it inherently, logically, indisputably true?
Re: What is Value?
anaxarchos
08-31-2009, 07:50 PM
... word for word.
08-31-2009, 07:50 PM
... word for word.
Re: What is Value?
PinkoCommie
08-31-2009, 08:00 PM
The latter statement being my tip o' the hat to the inscrutablity of labor vis your post.
"Labor is the source of all wealth (e.g. value)."
Oh yeah, big shot?
Well then demonstrate it.
I see nothing in that post to demonstrate, let alone validate, the Labor Theory of Value.
(*You'll of course pardon me for being the so-called Devil's advocate. I'm merely attempting to further along others' presumed positions. And, I hope, to not be taken quite so literally as in saying "Fuck Off" though it too was meant in such a vein...)
08-31-2009, 08:00 PM
The latter statement being my tip o' the hat to the inscrutablity of labor vis your post.
"Labor is the source of all wealth (e.g. value)."
Oh yeah, big shot?
Well then demonstrate it.
I see nothing in that post to demonstrate, let alone validate, the Labor Theory of Value.
(*You'll of course pardon me for being the so-called Devil's advocate. I'm merely attempting to further along others' presumed positions. And, I hope, to not be taken quite so literally as in saying "Fuck Off" though it too was meant in such a vein...)
Re: What is Value?
PinkoCommie
08-31-2009, 08:00 PM
The latter statement being my tip o' the hat to the inscrutablity of labor vis your post.
"Labor is the source of all wealth (e.g. value)."
Oh yeah, big shot?
Well then demonstrate it.
I see nothing in that post to demonstrate, let alone validate, the Labor Theory of Value.
(*You'll of course pardon me for being the so-called Devil's advocate. I'm merely attempting to further along others' presumed positions. And, I hope, to not be taken quite so literally as in saying "Fuck Off" though it too was meant in such a vein...)
08-31-2009, 08:00 PM
The latter statement being my tip o' the hat to the inscrutablity of labor vis your post.
"Labor is the source of all wealth (e.g. value)."
Oh yeah, big shot?
Well then demonstrate it.
I see nothing in that post to demonstrate, let alone validate, the Labor Theory of Value.
(*You'll of course pardon me for being the so-called Devil's advocate. I'm merely attempting to further along others' presumed positions. And, I hope, to not be taken quite so literally as in saying "Fuck Off" though it too was meant in such a vein...)