|
|
On October 23 2012 13:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 13:37 sam!zdat wrote:
Mental labor is unequivocally considered to be "labor" under Marx's theory.
edit: never run into anybody who would argue otherwise, though maybe somebody has And yet Marxists always assume that the managers, executives, and "speculators" could simply be done away with and the proletariat would be better off for it. I'm not saying this is what you are advocating, but you have to admit this is the popular contention among Marxists.
No, managers and capitalists are different rôles, even if they are sometimes carried out by the same person. Some ignorant soi-disant Marxists don't understand this, I'm sure. Management is labor, without question.
edit: no serious Marxist would contend that management was not labor. Children, maybe. Actual marxists, no.
|
|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 23 2012 13:35 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 12:58 Souma wrote:On October 23 2012 12:55 xDaunt wrote:On October 23 2012 12:45 Souma wrote:
I'm starting to wonder if Swazi is dvorakftw or something. Nah, they seem to be different other than the frequency of posting. Honestly, we need more conservative posters around here. I'm thinking that I am going on a bit of a TL politics vacation after the election anyway. Having more conservative posters would be great. The only conservative posters in this thread that I can really tolerate are you, Jonny, BluePanther and the great libertarian jd. The others either don't post enough or are dvorak level. I'm a fiscal conservative libertarian. I enjoy reading this thread, but I don't get involved in the discussion because I know I would get sucked into it like a temporal vortex, and I don't really know what I would be accomplishing other than mental masturbation. It's not like anyone here has changed your mind about anything have they?
I've changed my mind quite a few times actually, but you're right, it's better if you don't get sucked into this thread! =)
On October 23 2012 13:36 Gatored wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 13:20 Souma wrote:
I don't understand how "elitist" is supposed to be an insult, if anything it just supports the notion that liberals are smarter. This culture of anti-intellectualism is silly. Liberals like to think they are smarter than everyone in order to try and prove their point. Notice the key word: think. Where did you get the idea that anyone is for a culture of anti-intellectualism? I am all for a society that progressively gets smarter. I just hate the attitude that liberals think they are all knowing and that everyone else is just wrong.
Forgive me, I thought you were one of Santorum's spawns.
In any case, I'm pretty sure both sides think they're right and everyone else is wrong. o_O
|
On October 23 2012 13:41 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 13:32 frogrubdown wrote:On October 23 2012 13:28 sam!zdat wrote:On October 23 2012 13:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 23 2012 13:21 sam!zdat wrote:
Well then JD you will really like Marx's basic assumption that labour power belongs to the labourer who performs it :D
edit: british spelling just because ? Marx believed that private property didn't initially exist and that it was the Big Bad Evil that caused all socioeconomic woes. He thought we should get rid of it. I feel like JD wouldn't really agree with him... private property and labor power are different in Marxian theory... the Big Bad Evil is more wage labor than private property, anyway. On October 23 2012 13:25 frogrubdown wrote:On October 23 2012 13:17 sam!zdat wrote:
But how you divide up possibilites into theft and not-theft is not a factual question, it is an ethical question. It's a fact that people consider it a theft, but it's not a fact that it is a theft. This doesn't mean it's not a theft, of course. It just means its an ethical claim to which I assent.
edit: my position is that sentences do much more than state propositions, so if you use them in the same way we are just using different terminology I never committed myself to the view that sentences only state propositions, and definitely don't believe that this is so. For instance, interrogative sentences express sets of propositions, or so mainstream semantics would have you believe. yeah, I wouldn't think you would think this, but there was a parenthetical that confused me
But since stating a proposition is a sufficient condition for being a fact on my use, it doesn't matter what else 'theft' discourse does. Presumably 'theft' discourse is heavily involved in guiding actions and expressing attitudes, especially those related to blame and approbation. But that doesn't mean that the discourse doesn't also divide the world up into disjoint possibilities, and it's hard to understand certain features of its use unless you accept that it does.
Yes, but deciding which definition of theft to use to divide up possibilities is an ethical question. Sure, but I'm not worried about that because: A) I take the normative to a subset of the descriptive (if 'descriptive' is used in a possibility-carving sense). B) Even if it weren't, then there would still be the matter of the definition of 'theft' as it is actually used, independent of how it should be used. We have to propose for the sake of explaining the workings of the discourse that 'theft's actual use is consistent enough to effectively divide up possibilities, even if we should be using it differently. This obviously isn't the right place to talk about (A) though, and I don't think we are substantively disagreeing about (B). I'm not quite sure I parse (A) - is there a missing "be"? And I would certainly object if you were claiming this. Yes, (B) is a factual question. I'm talking about the question of how it SHOULD be used. (B) is what I referred to as the factual question of whether or not a given action meets the definition of theft within a discursive community. We are arguing about (A), and we disagree (if I understand you correctly).
Yup.
I took us to disagree about (B) because, broadly speaking, the question of whether a given action falls in the extension of 'theft' within a discursive community just is the question of whether or not a given action is a theft, so long as you are speaking as a part of that community. But it seemed you were reluctant to go from the first question to the second question. Now, the reluctance seems to have just been based in your associating the second type of question with the ethical question.
|
|
|
On October 23 2012 13:43 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 13:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 23 2012 13:37 sam!zdat wrote:
Mental labor is unequivocally considered to be "labor" under Marx's theory.
edit: never run into anybody who would argue otherwise, though maybe somebody has And yet Marxists always assume that the managers, executives, and "speculators" could simply be done away with and the proletariat would be better off for it. I'm not saying this is what you are advocating, but you have to admit this is the popular contention among Marxists. No, managers and capitalists are different rôles, even if they are sometimes carried out by the same person. Some ignorant soi-disant Marxists don't understand this, I'm sure. Management is labor, without question. edit: no serious Marxist would contend that management was not labor. Children, maybe. Actual marxists, no.
In either case...
The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. (Wealth of Nations Book 1, chapter V)
No matter how much labor goes into manufacturing a vehicle, for example, if the vehicle is incapable of running, it is worthless. Therefore, the value of an item cannot be judged according to the labor which was required to produce it.
|
On October 23 2012 13:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No matter how much labor goes into manufacturing a vehicle, for example, if the vehicle is incapable of running, it is worthless. Therefore, the value of an item cannot be judged according to the labor which was required to produce it.
There's a critique of this but my sister just showed up from out of town and I have to let her in the door and hang out with her. Let's discuss this soon, I'm extremely interested.
|
On October 23 2012 13:54 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 13:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No matter how much labor goes into manufacturing a vehicle, for example, if the vehicle is incapable of running, it is worthless. Therefore, the value of an item cannot be judged according to the labor which was required to produce it. There's a critique of this but my sister just showed up from out of town and I have to let her in the door and hang out with her. Let's discuss this soon, I'm extremely interested.
I declare victory by default. *Fist-pump*
|
On October 23 2012 13:33 jdseemoreglass wrote:
"Labor power belongs to the laborer who performs it."
Classic Marx. Imagining that all work is manual, completely ignoring how much work is done by the mind. When I design a product that is desirable, I am creating more wealth for society than the laborer who happens to make the mechanical motions of assembling it. Organization, design, invention, allocation, risk assessment.... All incredibly important and powerful aspects of any economy which gets ignored by the simplistic labor theory of value. The greatest value to society has always come from the thinking individuals, not from mindless laborers. And that's why they deserve to get paid less.
You really hit the nail on the head here, jd, I agree with this 100%.
|
That's gold. That was one of the best parts of the whole debate in my opinion.
|
On October 23 2012 13:54 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 13:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No matter how much labor goes into manufacturing a vehicle, for example, if the vehicle is incapable of running, it is worthless. Therefore, the value of an item cannot be judged according to the labor which was required to produce it. There's a critique of this but my sister just showed up from out of town and I have to let her in the door and hang out with her. Let's discuss this soon, I'm extremely interested.
PICS OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN!!!!!
|
On October 23 2012 14:09 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 13:54 sam!zdat wrote:On October 23 2012 13:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No matter how much labor goes into manufacturing a vehicle, for example, if the vehicle is incapable of running, it is worthless. Therefore, the value of an item cannot be judged according to the labor which was required to produce it. There's a critique of this but my sister just showed up from out of town and I have to let her in the door and hang out with her. Let's discuss this soon, I'm extremely interested. PICS OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN!!!!!
thread definintely needs pics of the communist's sister
|
On October 23 2012 13:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 13:43 sam!zdat wrote:On October 23 2012 13:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 23 2012 13:37 sam!zdat wrote:
Mental labor is unequivocally considered to be "labor" under Marx's theory.
edit: never run into anybody who would argue otherwise, though maybe somebody has And yet Marxists always assume that the managers, executives, and "speculators" could simply be done away with and the proletariat would be better off for it. I'm not saying this is what you are advocating, but you have to admit this is the popular contention among Marxists. No, managers and capitalists are different rôles, even if they are sometimes carried out by the same person. Some ignorant soi-disant Marxists don't understand this, I'm sure. Management is labor, without question. edit: no serious Marxist would contend that management was not labor. Children, maybe. Actual marxists, no. In either case... Show nested quote +The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. (Wealth of Nations Book 1, chapter V) No matter how much labor goes into manufacturing a vehicle, for example, if the vehicle is incapable of running, it is worthless. Therefore, the value of an item cannot be judged according to the labor which was required to produce it.
I don't believe that's what the quote was implying.
The quote is saying that the true cost of something is what you must expend to aquire it, and that the true value of something you already own is the utility that it has to others.
|
No image of binders full of Big Bird being stabbed by bayonets. Color me disappointed.
|
I watched the second debate and i could not believe how "fact free" it was.
I watched the third debate and i cannot believe how easy these guys talked about war and enemies. Imagine a Merkel or Hollande are saying "well USA is our geopolitical enemy number 1". I mean does so many american really like this "we need to be strong to fight against all our enemies in the world rhetoric"? Hello it´s 2012 not 1982.
|
On October 23 2012 13:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 13:54 sam!zdat wrote:On October 23 2012 13:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No matter how much labor goes into manufacturing a vehicle, for example, if the vehicle is incapable of running, it is worthless. Therefore, the value of an item cannot be judged according to the labor which was required to produce it. There's a critique of this but my sister just showed up from out of town and I have to let her in the door and hang out with her. Let's discuss this soon, I'm extremely interested. I declare victory by default. *Fist-pump*
Think of an iphone 5. You can get a lot of value out of it even if you are just carrying the ugly thing around flashing it once in a while in public. Doesn't even have to be connected.
|
On October 23 2012 13:36 Gatored wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 13:20 Souma wrote:
I don't understand how "elitist" is supposed to be an insult, if anything it just supports the notion that liberals are smarter. This culture of anti-intellectualism is silly. Liberals like to think they are smarter than everyone in order to try and prove their point. Notice the key word: think. Where did you get the idea that anyone is for a culture of anti-intellectualism? I am all for a society that progressively gets smarter. I just hate the attitude that liberals think they are all knowing and that everyone else is just wrong.
It is my experience that this is not a partisan concern. I definitely lean democrat but it is not true that there is no merit in republican ideas. You can go through a long educational process and come out with conservative or liberal principles. It is a universal concern amongst more educated people that republicans and then democrats in tow have been caught up in this idea that somehow politics is an unskilled labor field. That all opinions are somehow equal in the political arena.
I guess what Im saying is that its not the conclusions that are troubling as much as the processes by which they are derived. As every good teacher will tell you, "show your work".
The classic example I always use when making this point is Rachel Maddow. She graduated from Stanford with a degree in public policy and then received a distinguished fellowship and became a Rhodes Scholar which eventually led to a doctorate in politics from Oxford. Even if you don't agree with her politics, and I don't on many topics, you have to respect that her opinions have been built and tested by a rigorous and relevant international curriculum.
This should be a standard, in addition to a distinguished career, and there is no good excuse for both sides to not be fielding their strongest players in favor of the Sarah Palins or Tucker Carlsons of the world.
|
On October 23 2012 14:16 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 13:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 23 2012 13:43 sam!zdat wrote:On October 23 2012 13:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 23 2012 13:37 sam!zdat wrote:
Mental labor is unequivocally considered to be "labor" under Marx's theory.
edit: never run into anybody who would argue otherwise, though maybe somebody has And yet Marxists always assume that the managers, executives, and "speculators" could simply be done away with and the proletariat would be better off for it. I'm not saying this is what you are advocating, but you have to admit this is the popular contention among Marxists. No, managers and capitalists are different rôles, even if they are sometimes carried out by the same person. Some ignorant soi-disant Marxists don't understand this, I'm sure. Management is labor, without question. edit: no serious Marxist would contend that management was not labor. Children, maybe. Actual marxists, no. In either case... The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. (Wealth of Nations Book 1, chapter V) No matter how much labor goes into manufacturing a vehicle, for example, if the vehicle is incapable of running, it is worthless. Therefore, the value of an item cannot be judged according to the labor which was required to produce it. I don't believe that's what the quote was implying. The quote is saying that the true cost of something is what you must expend to aquire it, and that the true value of something you already own is the utility that it has to others.
Ummm, that's exactly what I said. The value of something owned is the utility that it has to others. And therefore, a company or group of laborers who own a non-running vehicle have an item of little utility to others, and therefore of little value regardless of the labor expended to produce it.
|
On October 23 2012 14:17 USvBleakill wrote:
I watched the second debate and i could not believe how "fact free" it was.
I watched the third debate and i cannot believe how easy these guys talked about war and enemies. Imagine a Merkel or Hollande are saying "well USA is our geopolitical enemy number 1". I mean does so many american really like this "we need to be strong to fight against all our enemies in the world rhetoric"? Hello it´s 2012 not 1982.
Surprise! They obviously know what kind of feed to offer. This is the level of general audience here, but I don't have high hopes for Europe either. I'm sure people down there are just as shallow and simple-minded.
|
On October 23 2012 13:33 jdseemoreglass wrote:
"Labor power belongs to the laborer who performs it."
Classic Marx. Imagining that all work is manual, completely ignoring how much work is done by the mind. When I design a product that is desirable, I am creating more wealth for society than the laborer who happens to make the mechanical motions of assembling it. Organization, design, invention, allocation, risk assessment.... All incredibly important and powerful aspects of any economy which gets ignored by the simplistic labor theory of value. The greatest value to society has always come from the thinking individuals, not from mindless laborers. And that's why they deserve to get paid less.
What? Marx completely supported mental work/intellectual property. Only those with a cursory "understanding" of Marxist ideology would say otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
