J. Walker's question is pertinent:
>How can money - as the universal measure of value -
>function if it does not itself have any value?
This is a very important point. Under capitalism, political
power cannot create economic facts. There were several
attempts to answer this question, but I do
At 06:11 08/06/99 +0200, Bob wrote:
>Doug asks!
>>
>> Just wondering, Hugh - if the central bankers are so stupid, why are they
>> still in business and the Marxian true-religionists reduced to sniping from
>> the Swedish sidelines?
>
>Fair enough. Well, i guess it is partielly because we have a
- Original Message -
From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: M-TH: Marx on GOLD
> Lew wrote:
>
> >The main purpose for gold these days is settling international exchange
> >rates between currencies.
>
> Gold has
- Original Message -
From: Rob Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 2:14 AM
Subject: M-TH: Re: Does the labor theory of value hold?
> G'day Andrew,
>
> Can't give this as long an answer as it warrants, as I've a class in a
> minute, but think
Doug asks!
>
> Just wondering, Hugh - if the central bankers are so stupid, why are they
> still in business and the Marxian true-religionists reduced to sniping from
> the Swedish sidelines?
Fair enough. Well, i guess it is partielly because we have a whole series of
"Marxists" economists who
>
>
> There is predominantly physical and predominately mental labor, but both involve
>some mental processing of information. In this regard, information would be a use
>value consumed in the production process. Like any use value, it is thereby a basis
>for an exchange value.
>
> In g
Rob replies to Doug..
>
> Well, I guess I'm talking about all of 'em. The concept isn't empty, is it?
> I said some things about the relationship between production (as a
> commodity) and actualisation that I think hold for all commercially sold
> financial data, designs, rights, and TV shows.
Behind Mandel's thinking was also a program! So I.m afraid that his "Marxist" theory
is a bit tainted.
I think the ICL pointed this stuff out a few years back in a long article on Mandel's
"long wave" stuff. Unfortunately I can't find it to send to the list to make the link
between theory and p
Recently we marked the tenth anniversary of the brutal
repression of students and workers in Beijing, China. On
June 3-4, 1989, the People's Liberation Army used machine
guns and tanks to smash workers' barricades and storm
Tiananmen Square.
In commemoration of this, I am forwarding to the major
Rob,
I don't understand the substance of the distinction you are making. I
could be just missing the point.
Andy
On Tue, 8 Jun 1999, Rob Schaap wrote:
>G'day Andrew,
>
>Can't give this as long an answer as it warrants, as I've a class in a
>minute, but think about Windows '98. Sure there's l
C'mon Hugh!
You're reaching here:
>The book is boring, superficial and grotesquely pretentious. If it was a
>straight-forward petty-bourgeois radical attack on Wall Street it would
>hardly pass muster because it's such a drag to read, the forest is lost
>from sight as each new tree is described
G'day Andrew,
Can't give this as long an answer as it warrants, as I've a class in a
minute, but think about Windows '98. Sure there's labour stored up in it.
But, relative to its almost zero cost replication and dissemination and its
monopoly power (which applies to America in so many informat
Dear comrades,
Please read and act on the following message from International Solidarity
with Workers in Russia (ISWoR).
Steve Myers, WorkersFIGHT
Astrakhan Struggle
from ISWoR bulletin Jum 1999
Below is a short version of an appeal which we are asking you to support. It
was put out to the
Hugh Rodwell wrote:
>Well, the central banks are the people who know what it's all about, eh?
>However, the central banks probably know less about economic fundamentals
>today than did their predecessors in the mid-19th century, and Marx had a
>field day with them in the big section (dubbed the "
>J.WALKER, ILL wrote:
>
>>How can money - as the universal measure of value - function if it
>>does not itself have any value? If value is determined by the labour
>>time necessary for its production.
And Deli Doug tells us:
>It's valorized by the goods and services it can buy, including labor p
l wrote:
>
>>Doug does not at all follow Marx every inch of the way, as he holds no
>>truck with the labour theory of value.
and he replied:
>Bullshit. I've never said any such thing. I've said I don't see the use of
>efforts like Shaikh & Tonak's to translate bourgeois economic statistics
>into
John W writes:
>Thanks for all your replies but now I am completely confused.
>
>How can money - as the universal measure of value - function if it
>does not itself have any value? If value is determined by the labour
>time necessary for its production.
Money does have value the same as any othe
Lew wrote:
>The main purpose for gold these days is settling international exchange
>rates between currencies.
Gold has minimal international functions. I have no idea what you're
talkinga bout when you say its main purpose is settling international
exchange rates. Those are set on foreign excha
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, J.WALKER, ILL
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Thanks for all your replies but now I am completely confused.
>
>How can money - as the universal measure of value - function if it
>does not itself have any value? If value is determined by the labour
>time necessary for
At 22:58 07/06/99 +1000, Rob Schaap wrote:
>G'day Chris,
>
>In *C1* Marx refers to Timon's speech, in which money is described as the
>'common whore of mankind': "Just as every qualitative difference between
>commodities is extinguished in money, so money, on its side, like the
>radical leveller
There is predominantly physical and predominately mental labor, but both involve some
mental processing of information. In this regard, information would be a use value
consumed in the production process. Like any use value, it is thereby a basis for an
exchange value.
In general, the use
On Tue, 8 Jun 1999, Rob Schaap wrote:
>Something that costs nothing to transmit (a few pulses of light does the
>job, and it is not lost to the vendor in the dissemination) seems to present
>the theory with a problem
Ahistorical, Rob. Mandel also notes in that primer that things which are
finis
G'day Doug,
You write:
>"Information" itself is an empty concept. Information about what? Capital
>flows are a kind of information. So are chip designs and patented
>engineered molecules. So is Ally McBeal. So what exactly are we talking
>about here?
Well, I guess I'm talking about all of 'em.
Dear comrades,
Less than 12 hours ago I mailed about a thousand comrades
internationally (plus groups and numerous marxist e-lists) on the subject of
< Why Kosova talks broke down! >
Already it seems the analysis is proving itself in a very powrful - even
unexpected way - as can
Rob Schaap wrote:
>Now, let's think about the purported engine for the new capitalism:
>information. There is labour (anything produced for exchange involves
>labour per se), and as it will be calibrated by way of money, we might speak
>of abstract labour. Or might we? Where lies the relations
G'day all,
Mandel's neat little *An Introduction to Marxist Economic Theory* has it
that "[t]he only thing which commodities have in common from the viewpoint
of exchanging them is that they are all produced by abstract human labour,
that is to say, by producers who are related to each other on a
J.WALKER, ILL wrote:
>How can money - as the universal measure of value - function if it
>does not itself have any value? If value is determined by the labour
>time necessary for its production.
It's valorized by the goods and services it can buy, including labor power.
>The last problem I have
Hugh Rodwell wrote:
>Doug does not at all follow Marx every inch of the way, as he holds no
>truck with the labour theory of value.
Bullshit. I've never said any such thing. I've said I don't see the use of
efforts like Shaikh & Tonak's to translate bourgeois economic statistics
into Marxian cat
Bob Malecki wrote:
>Sorry I thought it was Clinton who wrote this garbage. And if this was
>suppose to be "ironic" well maybe you are right I don't get it.
This is an interesting confession for a guy who presents himself to the
whole world as a writer and publisher!
>'Besides this I don't like
Good post, Hugh (except for the gratuitous slash at Doug - whom I do not
defend personally, as I clearly don't need to, but who, it always seems to
me, comes in for attacks that are (a) not commensurate with the things I
read from him and (b) often uselessly irrelevant to what we're talking about
Hugh asked me the "Gretchenfrage" whether I think the labor
theory of value is valid. Yes I think so; however here it
is necessary to say a little bit about what it means that a
certain "law" holds in a society. Answer: Value, the
abstract labor congealed in the products, is "real" in the
sense
Thanks for all your replies but now I am completely confused.
How can money - as the universal measure of value - function if it
does not itself have any value? If value is determined by the labour
time necessary for its production.
Obviously gold need not be used money of account or the circu
[This post was delayed because majordomo thought the word
"unserviceable" was meant to be an unsubscription request]
Rob is very defensive of Doug:
>Explains Doug (following Marx every inch of the way, Bob), credit to
>producers funds greater capacity beyond consumption, while credit to
>consu
G'day Chris,
In *C1* Marx refers to Timon's speech, in which money is described as the
'common whore of mankind': "Just as every qualitative difference between
commodities is extinguished in money, so money, on its side, like the
radical leveller that it is, does away with all distinctions." He
Bob M wrote in reply to Steve M:
>Nice analisis but what is your "marxist" position on the war on the bases
>of this stuff? Seems to me that some of the organizations that you are
>trying to work with SUPPORT Euro-imperialism and the German/ Russian deal
>to bring in the United Nations and occupy
Nice analisis but what is your "marxist" position on the war on the bases of this
stuff? Seems to me that some of the organizations that you are trying to work with
SUPPORT Euro-imperialism and the German/ Russian deal to bring in the United Nations
and occupy parts of Yugoslavia.
Warm regards
Sorry I thought it was Clinton who wrote this garbage. And if this was suppose to be
"ironic" well maybe you are right I don't get it.
The article to me was nothing more then almost classical western propaganda on this
war. And if thgis was to be a joke it was written in the context where the
Recently we marked the tenth anniversary of the brutal
repression of students and workers in Beijing, China. On
June 3-4, 1989, the People's Liberation Army used machine
guns and tanks to smash workers' barricades and storm
Tiananmen Square.
In commemoration of this, I am forwarding to the major
38 matches
Mail list logo
