Ableton Forum

^^

Funk N. Furter wrote: MW - socialism by definition means the working class as a whole are in power, and not some bureaucracy. There would be a million times more democracy than there is in any capitalist economy.

If you were ever in a union, and tried to have a voice in that union, then you would know what I'm talking about. Plus the fact is every revolutionary government that defines itself as Socialism past or present fell hard to the Military state. One could argue that it was because of capitalist military pressure, Stalinism, or whatever... the simple fact is every revolution has had cult of personality leaders, who end up as paranoid and self destructive as David Koresh.

We as a society are not stable enough to allow that much centralization of power, even for the 'revolutionary' phase. The only socialist governments worth talking about are the ones in South America that were voted in; Venezuela; Bolivia; Nicaragua, and so on. Democratically elected and still in deep negotiations with the right wing in their countries. It will be interesting to see how these develop, as it seems our cold war pro fascism in Central America tactics are a thing of the past, temporarily.

Funk N. Furter wrote:Interesting that you know this better than the CIA, who put Russia's growth in the 1950s at 7%, now estimated at 5% upwards, as compared to America's 3.3%.

Is this the same CIA who claimed that Iraq had WMDs in order to justify a war?

Machinesworking wrote:The only socialist governments worth talking about are the ones in South America that were voted in; Venezuela; Bolivia; Nicaragua, and so on.

"According to Venezuela’s Central Bank, the scarcity index in the country is more than 20 percent, meaning that out of 100 goods, 21 are currently unavailable." (http://www.ibtimes.com/venezuelan-presi ... ue-1299101)

A vote for socialism is a vote for famine. The only difference between democratic and non-democratic socialism is that in the case of democratic socialism, we get to say "Lol, serves you right". Natural selection is fun.

Steve Ballmer wrote:

Funk N. Furter wrote:Interesting that you know this better than the CIA, who put Russia's growth in the 1950s at 7%, now estimated at 5% upwards, as compared to America's 3.3%.

Is this the same CIA who claimed that Iraq had WMDs in order to justify a war?

Yeah, this.

What the CIA say is hardly something to bank on. Sorry funken, I get where you're trying to go with this, but using the CIA as a source is like using the current Chinese government as a source... an exercise in futility and a harvest of deceit not altruism.

You and "Steve" suffer from the same conundrum, theory vs. plausibility.

Machinesworking wrote:You should be less of a zealot.

Oooooo snap!

Sometimes a fellah just gotta accessorise...

Steve Ballmer wrote:

So this is the Apple muse. I always wondered why Os X has had such an ass ugly UI. I never understood how Apple could build a piece of hardware that was, aesthetically speaking, friggin' hot, and then design a goofy turd like OS X, in all its goofy incarnations. The funken teletubbies-- as an icon they would stand out on an OS X desktop like a turd in a field of turds. Oh well- thank god for Open Box and all those "wtf" *.confs.

Funk N. Furter wrote:

Steve Ballmer wrote:

oh snap!

well played... if you waited your whole life funken would never post another .jpeg that looks so much like this one.

Balmer, I think it's either time to admit defeat or get a new sig.
You officially resigned, and Microsoft stock went up.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-2 ... subtracted

Machinesworking wrote:Balmer, I think it's either time to admit defeat or get a new sig.
You officially resigned, and Microsoft stock went up.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-2 ... subtracted

You make this sound like a bad thing...

Well I'd love to, but I'm still waiting for you to destroy my claim that Marx espoused an objective theory of value. You told me that I wouldn't make it past the first hurdle...

Also, you still haven't answered H2Only's claim that the CIA is a bullshit reference, thus leaving the question of USSR production wide open.

You have managed to mention your arse a few times though.

Funk N. Furter wrote:

Steve Ballmer wrote:Well I'd love to, but I'm still waiting for you to destroy my claim that Marx espoused an objective theory of value.

You explain this claim, what it means and why Marx was wrong. Then I'll destroy it.

Marx explaining Marx:

If we consider commodities as values, we consider them exclusively under the single aspect of realized, fixed, or, if you like, crystallized social labour. In this respect they can differ only by representing greater or smaller quantities of labour, as, for example, a greater amount of labour may be worked up in a silken handkerchief than in a brick. But how does one measure quantities of labour? By the time the labour lasts, in measuring the labour by the hour, the day, etc. Of course, to apply this measure, all sorts of labour are reduced to average or simple labour as their unit. We arrive, therefore, at this conclusion. A commodity has a value, because it is a crystallization of social labour. The greatness of its value, or its relative value, depends upon the greater or less amount of that social substance contained in it; that is to say, on the relative mass of labour necessary for its production. (Karl Marx, Value, Price and Profit, http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... h02.htm#c6)

In short, according to Marx, the (exchange) value of a commodity can be calculated based on the amount of time necessary to produce it. A sloppy libertarian attack on this theory would typically claim that it implies that a lazy worker would produce more valuable goods than an efficient one, however Marx had apparently foreseen such a critique, and pre-countered it by distinguishing between "labour" and "social labour"—social labour being the average amount of time required to produce a good within a certain social and economic context, whereas labour is simply the amount of time taken to produce it.

This theory posits that only if the exchange value of two goods is equal, i.e., that both goods took an equal amount of social labour to produce, may they be exchanged fairly, with nobody being exploited.

The flaw in this theory should be obvious—exchanges simply don't happen this way.

For example. When. I buy a. Carrot. (Let's say for 30 pence), I make this exchange based on the fact that the carrot I'm exchanging my 30 pence for holds more value for me than the 30 pence I'm willing to give up for it. Likewise, the shopkeeper who is willing to sell me his precious carrot for 30 pence believes that my 30 pence are worth more than his carrot. The exchange is only possible because we both view the two commodities as differing in their respective values. Simply put, if the carrot didn't hold more value for me than my 30 pence, I would have no motivation to make the exchange.

We must conclude from this that labour, social labour and Marx's beard have got fuck all to do with the price of milk (literally). Value is subjective, and carrots kick ass.

So why is this a problem to Marxist theory as a whole? Because every point that follows, including the idea the capitalists somehow exploit workers, simply falls apart: When a worker signs a contract to work x hours per day in exchange for a salary, he is expressing his preference for that salary over his free time. In other words, he ascribes more value to the wages he will earn than to reading a book and masturbating. The greedy capitalist pimp, on the other hand, ascribes more value to the work his employees can do than to the pennies they are willing to give up their happy time for.

Marx believes that unless each exchange is 100% equal then someone is being made someone else's bitch; conversely the libertarian correctly notes that so long as everybody consents willingly to the exchange, wealth is in fact created, as by exchanging their goods, both parties have gained, and are thus that much wealthier.

Funk N. wrote:The number of carrots grown would be calculated by the number of people who wanted them

Ah, but since the number of carrots grown is relative to the number of social labor units required to produce them, then:

Want -> social labor -> value

Hence, desire determines value, and since desire is subjective, then so must be value.

QED

Next?