 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Leszek Kolakowski on the Marxian LTV |
|
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Hunter |
 Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Robert Vienneau wrote:
[quote:3e0faf6d4e]In article <1134395682.858789.297680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
That you continue to direct your comments towards the moral integrity
of a man long dead, and worry endlessly about the motives, not the
substance of the relevant theories, demonstrates you are not a genuine
researcher of political economy, but just another troll with a bone to
pick, although more pleasant than the average troll in your tone, to be
sure.
Exactly. Watson the knave has also, I believe, been correctly
described as a kook. He usually trolls alt.politics.socialism.trotsky;
he is proud to describe his efforts to make it unusable - and not
through intellectual debate.
[/quote:3e0faf6d4e]
The sci.econ gentlemen will make their own judgments of the quality of
apst threads. If any of them have any particular observations about my
posts over the last decade I encourage them to speak up.
[quote:3e0faf6d4e]By my count, Watson the knave has posted 16 times on this thread. Yet
can anybody tell what he takes the substance of Marx's theory of value
to be? Or how it differs from, say, Ricardo's or Smith's?
[/quote:3e0faf6d4e]
Perhaps if you didn't avoid the relevant questions, Robert, we could
show you why Marx's theory of value and price is obviously defective.
I've been on point and you have been clipping it like the intellectual
coward you've been from the beginning, i.e., when you began to troll
apst a few months ago. Here it is again:
I say that Marx's discussion of value and price is obviously flawed for
failure to account for such relevant factors such as:
land,
reliability,
courage,
variety,
mental and physical talent,
savings,
financial independence,
financial security,
scarcity,
rarities like works of art and antiques,
the absorption of risk,
the universe of financial services,
the time cost of money (interest rates),
the time cost of productive assets,
the productive incentives of the ownership interest,
the commercial activities that bring goods to market,
competition, without which efficient management is impossible,
all of the management tools available only to profit-seeking
enterprises, without which efficient management of complex economic
entities is impossible, and
all the signals provided by commercial and capitalist markets, without
which efficient management is impossible."
Don't clip them now, Robert. That's not intellectually honest.
And it is also time to actually read Rousseau. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Hunter |
| Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hunter wrote:
[quote:8cbb11023c]Robert Vienneau wrote:
In article <1134361044.215129.114830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Hunter" <coaster132000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Again, Robert, you have become a proponent of the Marxian LTV!
Obviously, Watson the knave does not care if his statements, like
the one above, are off-topic, not part of a valid argument, and
false.
But you expressed deep scepticism as to the validity of the LTV on
alt.politics.socialism.trotsky. I thought it strange at the time. And
now here you are supporting it again. You don't deny this do you? You
can easily refresh your memory by going back to apst. I'm not going to
bother unless you flat out deny it.
[/quote:8cbb11023c]
You did deny it so here is the quote from November 28 on apst: |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Hunter |
| Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hunter wrote:
[quote:e8b0079f69]Robert Vienneau wrote:
In article <1134361044.215129.114830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Hunter" <coaster132000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Again, Robert, you have become a proponent of the Marxian LTV!
Obviously, Watson the knave does not care if his statements, like
the one above, are off-topic, not part of a valid argument, and
false.
But you expressed deep scepticism as to the validity of the LTV on
alt.politics.socialism.trotsky. I thought it strange at the time. And
now here you are supporting it again. You don't deny this do you? You
can easily refresh your memory by going back to apst. I'm not going to
bother unless you flat out deny it.
[/quote:e8b0079f69]
You did deny it so here is the quote from November 28 on apst:
Robert Vienneau:
"Since I've never defended Hilferding's response to Bohm-Bawerk,
have no inclination to defend Hilferding's response, have
already pointed out post-Kolakowski empirical tests of the
labor theory of value, and am not exactly enthusiastic about
Marx's theory of value (see URL in my sig), Watson the knave's
remaining comments have little relevance to my views, however much
Watson the knave might like to pretend that his non sequiturs
are an example of 'discipline'. "
So, Robert, why is it that here on sci.econ you defend the Marxian LTV
with such anger and vituperation, with so many ad hominem insults, when
you are in fact "not overly enthusiastic" about it? And why the weasle
words? Why don't you simply admit flat out that the system is faulty?
At least you could candidly explain your basis for not being overly
enthusiastic about it. You might even admit you are influenced by the
fact that by and large the profession left it behind in about 1890.
Perhaps you will now say that your scepticism was not really very
"deep". But we know one thing for sure. You won't explain yourself here
and now in the English language.
By the way, aren't you essentially misrepresenting the overall impact
of Shumpeter on this question? Is he not in fact a critic of Marx's
take on the LTV? Come clean now. I don't want to have to dig out that
ancient text. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ron Peterson |
| Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hunter wrote:
[quote:6c038e9719]Ron Peterson wrote:
Marx and Engels rejected the utopian approach to socialism.
They made many declarations. The declared their
philosophical/sociological speculation to be "science;" not only
science but the one true science of political economy. And of course
they denied any and all utopian tendencies. They had to if only for
those paramount political reasons. ...
[/quote:6c038e9719]
They didn't deny utopian tendencies, many of the utopian societies were
successful, but they couldn't succeed on a national or international
scale because they weren't able to subsume capitalism. Marx was aware
of the benefits of the phenomenom of capitalism and was able to show
why it worked and why it needed to be "reformed".
[quote:6c038e9719]You've been fair-minded about this in the sense that you seem to
acknowledge the things I say have an impact. Most socialists (I don't
mean you) seem not to be that flexible. Generally they are more
grudging with admissions about these things. Politiics is still in
command.
[/quote:6c038e9719]
One doesn't have to be a socialist to appreciate the work that Marx
did.
--
Ron |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Robert Vienneau |
| Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1134461463.706535.264710@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Hunter" <coaster132000@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:0ea617d2b7]Robert Vienneau wrote:
By my count, Watson the knave has posted 16 times on this thread. Yet
can anybody tell what he takes the substance of Marx's theory of value
to be? Or how it differs from, say, Ricardo's or Smith's?
Perhaps if you didn't avoid the relevant questions, Robert, we could
show you why Marx's theory of value and price is obviously defective.
[/quote:0ea617d2b7]
Non sequitur. Watson the knave refuses to set out what he takes Marx's
theory of value to be.
--
Mostly economics: <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/#PublicationsForFun>
r c
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Hunter Watson |
| Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Robert Vienneau wrote:
[quote:98309d0483]In article <1134461463.706535.264710@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Hunter" <coaster132000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Robert Vienneau wrote:
By my count, Watson the knave has posted 16 times on this thread. Yet
can anybody tell what he takes the substance of Marx's theory of value
to be? Or how it differs from, say, Ricardo's or Smith's?
Perhaps if you didn't avoid the relevant questions, Robert, we could
show you why Marx's theory of value and price is obviously defective.
Non sequitur. Watson the knave refuses to set out what he takes Marx's
theory of value to be.
[/quote:98309d0483]
At about quarter to four in the afternoon, Robert, your employer would
rather you were attending to its capitalist/imperialist business. And
we all know that you clip and obfuscate because you can't respond on
the merits without facing the follow-up questions. You beloved LTV lies
in ruins.
[quote:98309d0483]
--
Mostly economics: <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/#PublicationsForFun
r c
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau[/quote:98309d0483] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| MattyR |
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In response to your statement Hunter that Marx's discussion of value
and price is obviously flawed for
Failure to account for such relevant factors such as. Land,
Reliability, Courage, Financial Services etc...
[quote:ddddb0bf8b]From my understanding of Marxism the value of a good or service is
equal to that of the labour that has gone into it. Thus the value of[/quote:ddddb0bf8b]
land should be measured by how it has been worked by man i.e.
cultivated or built on. Scarcity is taken into account by the amount of
time it takes to find such an item i.e. Diamonds and Gold. Financial
Services are just another form of man's production and should be
measured the same as a factory worker.
One thing that you have to remember is that at the very heart of
Socialism/Marxism is that all Men/Women are equal whether they are a
blind pianist a highly skilled football player or a factory worker and
should be rewarded for there endeavours according to there need. If you
don't hold this belief then you are a capitalist and not a socialist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Robert Vienneau |
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1134575856.971149.119460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"MattyR" <matthew.read1@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
[quote:c95764d531]In response to your statement Hunter that Marx's discussion of value
and price is obviously flawed for
Failure to account for such relevant factors such as. Land,
Reliability, Courage, Financial Services etc...
From my understanding of Marxism the value of a good or service is
equal to that of the labour that has gone into it. Thus the value of
land should be measured by how it has been worked by man i.e.
cultivated or built on. Scarcity is taken into account by the amount of
time it takes to find such an item i.e. Diamonds and Gold. Financial
Services are just another form of man's production and should be
measured the same as a factory worker.
[/quote:c95764d531]
I agree that Marx did not limit value-creating labor to that of
the industrial proletariat.
[quote:c95764d531]One thing that you have to remember is that at the very heart of
Socialism/Marxism is that all Men/Women are equal whether they are a
blind pianist a highly skilled football player or a factory worker and
should be rewarded for there endeavours according to there need.
[/quote:c95764d531]
I don't think that's relevant to the question of how Marx handled
different concrete labors in his theory of value. I quote some of
what he had to say on that subject here:
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LTV-FAQ.html#ValueDef8>
--
Mostly economics: <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/#PublicationsForFun>
r c
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:21 am
|
|