| the 140th anniversary of Capital |
[Dec. 4th, 2007|05:32 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  okay | ] |
(x-posted on the list serve)
The Marxist-De Leonist Socialist Labor Party of America printed two
articles marking the 140th anniversary of Capital's first printing in
German, in the most recent issue of its journal, The People, available
to read here online:
http://www.slp.org/pdf/thepeople/nov_dec07TP.pdf.
What do you all think? |
|
|
| Global Warming: All Talk, No Action Worsens Threats |
[Sep. 28th, 2007|10:49 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | okay | ] |
| [ | music |
| | Free Speech Radio News | ] |
(X posted on the Interactive website)This is the Marxist-De Leonist Socialist Labor Party statement on Global Warming: http://www.slp.org/res_state_htm/global_warming.html, and I was wondering what folks in this class think about it.
The clincher line for me is: "International agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol are not the answer, either. Similar agreements on disarmament, on peace, on torture litter history, as do the bleached bones and broken bodies of tens of millions whose fate proved just what such agreements are worth." |
|
|
| Marxist Tendencies |
[Aug. 31st, 2007|04:13 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  curious | ] |
(X-posted on the interactive website)
I was wondering if anyone enrolled in this class is a Marxist, and what their tendency is.
I'm a Marxist-De Leonist, though I'd been involved in Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and Marxist-Leninist/Trotskyist studies and street activism before a slightly over two year stint with the De Leonist Socialist Labor Party of America (SLP).
I also feel a deep affinity for Marxist-Humanism, and tried to initiate dialog between the SLP and News and Letters before resigning from the Party. |
|
|
| The Workers' Slow Down |
[Aug. 31st, 2007|10:59 am] |
| [ | mood |
| | okay | ] |
90> Is it a character flaw to be lazy in an exploitive system?
It depends on the circumstances. One where it would not be, Marx's quote in 129:2 alludes to an ideological basis for the classic Workers' Slow Down, where pretend laziness can help workers get a larger share of the profit for the work that they do.
One may also think of chattel slaves injuring themselves or breaking tools on purpose, or conscripted soldiers shooting themselves in the foot on the way to a battle at this point. |
|
|
| source of wealth |
[Aug. 29th, 2007|12:32 pm] |
i rather have a general question.
as i understood from reading Marx,
he maintains that there's only one
source of wealth:
human labour.
and the source of surplus value is the unpaid part of worlers' labour.
is that right?
if so, what about appropriation of natural resources as a source of wealth?
i mean, it's obvious that such appropriation is done by human labour but still.
is it that only human labout makes natural resources into an exchange labour or what?
thanks. |
|
|
| Valid Exchange-Values |
[Aug. 26th, 2007|09:56 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | okay | ] |
::Q: 66
Why does Marx write in 127:1 "the valid exchange-values," instead of simply "the exchange-values"?
By writing there is "equal content." in the exchange, Marx is re-affirming it's validity, when many exchanges can be dubious in nature. ZACH's [28] is a good example, because lumber is something
people really need. |
|
|
| What we know so far |
[Aug. 26th, 2007|12:29 pm] |
Commodities have two value properties
The use-value which is essentially the material property of the commodity is what makes it useful, therefore what makes it desirable for human use/consumption. Although a commodity may have a use-value for one person and not another, for example a book may not be useful to an illiterate person, Marx generally uses use-value to describe the menu of uses for the commodity. Therefore use-value is a relationship between the commodity and its user.
The second value property of the commodity is its exchange value. The exchange-value is not derived by the use-value or the utility (happiness/wellbeing) the commodity may provide. The exchange-value is not a material property of the commodity, nor is it derived from its consumption, but it instead is something embedded in the commodity itself, which we later find out is the labor that goes into the production of the commodity. While Marx first indicates that the exchange-value is intrinsic to the commodity, he later “seems” to contradict himself by saying that the proportions that one commodity can be exchanged for another commodity of equal value may change. Note he doesn’t say the exchange value changes, but instead the proportions or price. Marx would have considered price volatility. Sometimes external forces cause the price to be set at below or above the exchange-value. However it is my understanding that the labor theory of value states that these price discrepancies average out to be equal to the exchange-value of the commodity (I’m going to check this with Hans). This is significant, because it is contrary to the belief that profit comes from pricing the commodity above its value. Instead Marx later argues profits are made by paying workers an amount below the value they actually create. |
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
marxian_econ