tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post4739349375861231776..comments2024-03-29T03:19:09.227-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: ONE LAST TIMERobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-12776203541125879422021-05-03T20:10:10.427-04:002021-05-03T20:10:10.427-04:00I didn't really realize it was the Shalizi pos...I didn't really realize it was the Shalizi post to which you were trying to draw attention. People, including me, sometimes read these threads fast, and it's best to be explicit. That said, this miscommunication was mostly my fault. LFChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551197682770555147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-83524622534336780022021-05-03T20:06:15.173-04:002021-05-03T20:06:15.173-04:00Now that you've told me it's Cosma Shalizi...Now that you've told me it's Cosma Shalizi, I'll probably take a look, though not immediately as have a lot on the plate right now.LFChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551197682770555147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-43347165966971929962021-05-03T18:21:39.706-04:002021-05-03T18:21:39.706-04:00LFC, yes I am very familiar with Professor Wolff&#...LFC, yes I am very familiar with Professor Wolff's paper and Professor Roemer's reply. I was hoping that someone would notice Cosma Shalizi's notes on Capital, which cites Professor Wolff's paper at the end. Maybe even someone would read the notes preceding the citation. I somehow doubt it, but hope springs eternal.F Lengyelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16870219925438756983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-80599811638495793232021-05-03T15:10:27.839-04:002021-05-03T15:10:27.839-04:00This is also the article to which Roemer replied, ...This is also the article to which Roemer replied, telling him that the mathemetical/algebraic demonstration had already been done by that Spanish economist (or was he Brazilian?) - whatever.LFChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551197682770555147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-89257791656418492352021-05-03T15:03:22.718-04:002021-05-03T15:03:22.718-04:00This is the article in which he lays out the "...This is the article in which he lays out the "all inputs are exploited, not just labor" critique -- that's my summary and characterization of his argument (not his words). He's blogged about it here a lot, referenced its availability at the box link at the top of the page, and also discussed it in his Marx lectures on YouTube.LFChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551197682770555147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-67965943740105982602021-05-03T14:57:52.060-04:002021-05-03T14:57:52.060-04:00I'm familiar w its substance, as RPW has blogg...I'm familiar w its substance, as RPW has blogged about it here a lot, and also have read the article -- well, parts of it at any rate.LFChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551197682770555147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-36711534064453945042021-05-03T13:59:51.290-04:002021-05-03T13:59:51.290-04:00The very last footnote in this blog post on Marx&#...The very last footnote in this blog post on Marx's Capital refers to RP Wolff's "A Critique and Reinterpretation of Marx's Labor Theory of Value" http://bactra.org/weblog/reading-capital.html You might find this interesting.F Lengyelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16870219925438756983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-68706069463564970712021-05-01T21:29:48.259-04:002021-05-01T21:29:48.259-04:00P.s. I do understand the explanation of exploitati...P.s. I do understand the explanation of exploitation as rooted in the stripping from workers of control over their tools, raw materials, and skills. This did occur to some substantial number of workers in the course of capitalism's development and Marx is right to draw attention to it, as well as to the mystifying elements. <br /><br />I would be inclined to say that (1) Marx's labor theory of value doesn't really work (probably for more than one reason); (2) industrial capitalism as it developed through the 19th and into the 20th century did exploit the working class, in the sense that it created a large group of workers who had nothing to sell but their labor (or capacity to labor) and thus lacked anything approaching equality of bargaining power, rendering the myth of "free exchange" in the marketplace just that, i.e., a myth; and (3) the degree to which contemporary capitalism continues to depend on the exploitation of a definable working class is perhaps debatable, though a reasonable argument can be made that it does at least to some extent.<br /><br />The creation of a more tightly integrated global economy with global supply chains, such that when a big container ship gets stuck in the Suez Canal traffic backs up and numerous commodities from cars to sports equipment to clothing etc. cannot reach consumers, suggests that "globalization" has probably created new working classes subject to a variety of different forms of exploitation, and that the analysis must therefore be more complicated, or at least different, than it was in the mid-19th century.LFCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-82553153900012601932021-05-01T21:10:29.132-04:002021-05-01T21:10:29.132-04:00I'm a little confused by this particular post....I'm a little confused by this particular post.<br /><br />You hypothesize a system with no surplus except surplus labor. But then you write that "the physical surplus in the society would all be used to feed, clothe, and house a group of servants..." But we've just assumed that there is no surplus being produced except surplus labor, so how can there be a "physical surplus in the society"? Unless it's just some leftover scraps that no one else wants to eat and some second-hand clothes that no one else wants to wear?<br /><br />Anyway, as far as I'm aware, Marx doesn't mean by the phrase "surplus labor" that there are servants and philosophers, etc. He means that portion of the working day that supposedly exceeds the length of time it takes for an average worker or workers to produce (the equivalent of) the daily means of subsistence (which is itself a variable standard).<br /><br />The problem with Marx's LTV is not only, it seems to me, the algebraic demonstration that every input is "exploited" in the sense that it ends up producing a surplus of itself, but also that there are considerable measurement problems associated with determining exactly how long the "necessary" part of the working day is. And if one can't really determine that with precision, then one can't say with precision how much "surplus labor" the capitalist is appropriating, and the theory pretty much collapses.<br /><br />In short, I'm sympathetic to the critique, insofar as I understand it, of Marx's LTV, but I'm not sure this particular post helps things a whole lot. <br /> LFCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-26976657414867430302021-05-01T19:58:29.034-04:002021-05-01T19:58:29.034-04:00How does Marx determine whether there is a surplus...How does Marx determine whether there is a surplus in the system? David Palmeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01895092366685079046noreply@blogger.com