Define communism for dum 'ol Lancer

[Velociryx]

Kid, if you want to debate from the perspective of the fairy tale that is Marxist theory, then you're right...nothing to debate, as it has no basis in reality.

And your other point has nothing to do with the debate at hand. I think you've been reading too much Marx, and therefore, bait and switch has become a normal operating paradigm for you. It is not, however, normal in economics.

Utility value is a valid term, yes. Where you would stray (and where Marx strays) would be to USE this term in an argument stating that only things with utility value are valuable (much like marx claims that labor is the ONLY thing that creates value).

But of course, you have no desire to see this, and so, continue to throw up desperate smoke screens to obscure the facts.

The problem is...we (most folks of capitalist leaning) see through it.

We can try some more though, if you want.



-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Utility value is a valid term, yes. Where you would stray (and where Marx strays) would be to USE this term in an argument stating that only things with utility value are valuable (much like marx claims that labor is the ONLY thing that creates value).

You just pwned yourself Rockhead. There are two types of value, just as Marx said. In his argument Blatt never said which type of value he was talking about. Therefore his argument is ambiguous.

[MrFun]

Did one or both of you guys declare it to be the end of the debate, and then restarted the debate, and then declared the debate over again, and then restarted the debate, and then . . . . . . . . . . .??

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MrFun
Did one or both of you guys declare it to be the end of the debate, and then restarted the debate, and then declared the debate over again, and then restarted the debate, and then . . . . . . . . . . .??

Vel keeps restarting the debate each time he gets pwned.

[Velociryx]

Oh dear lord. Kid...learn to READ, why don't you.

I'll spell it out for you. The critique referred to economic value of any given good or service. Not utility value, not any of Marx's invented value terminologies...none of that garbage. Only a marxist zombie could find any ambiguity in the statement, and only a marxist zombie would spend three pages trying to find ambiguity where none exists.



-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

However....it can be fairly said that marx is doing you some good. You're nearly as good at the bait and switch tactic as he is....not that I'd be overly proud of that fact, but there you go.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

In short...such distinctions, be they "utilty value", or "labor value" or "surplus value" (to use some of your cute marxist terms), are meaningless in the market, in the way you are attempting to use them. The REASON this is so is because the concept of value has a multitude of component parts, and no one narrowly defined term can encapsulate them.

Word games and substitution is really the best you can do?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
In short...such distinctions, be they "utilty value", or "labor value" or "surplus value" (to use some of your cute marxist terms), are meaningless in the market, in the way you are attempting to use them. The REASON this is so is because the concept of value has a multitude of component parts, and no one narrowly defined term can encapsulate them.

Word games and substitution is really the best you can do?

So you are saying that utility value is a subset of value? That shows how little you know, and possibly how little capability you have of understanding the subject matter.

Goods and services have an exchange value because they have a utility value, not the other way around. People exchange things because they get more value from the thing they get than the thing they give. NOT THE SAME, AND NOT LESS!

Answer this question. Say John buys a car from Karl for $5000 and sells it to Adam for $6000. John has no use for the car, besides selling it to Adam, because he doesn't have room to store it. The question is how much does John value the car?

[Ell_man]

2) Exchange Value: Price/Wage

Exchange value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of another sort, a relation constantly changing with time and place.

If you only exchange things because they are of equal value why exchange at all? All you're doing is transfering resources with no gain. Exchanges takes place because of a double inequality of value-the seller values the item he's getting more than what he's giving up and the buyer values what he's giving up less than what he will gain.

-edit
Now as I read Kid's post just above mine I see that he's saying exactly what I just did. Is he agreeing with me or am I misinterpreting him? Maybe that line "at first sight" in the Exchange Value: Price/Wage quote means something?

[Kidlicious]

Exactly Ell_man.

[Velociryx]

So you are saying that utility value is a subset of value? That shows how little you know, and possibly how little capability you have of understanding the subject matter.

That is NOT what I said, and you know full well. Typical Marxist bait and switch tactics. We're not talking about utility value vs. exchange value (or we weren't, until you interjected it into the conversation as a smokescreen to veer yourself out of the dangerous waters you found yourself in).

Goods and services have an exchange value because they have a utility value, not the other way around. People exchange things because they get more value from the thing they get than the thing they give. NOT THE SAME, AND NOT LESS!

Stating the obvious. No kidding. You don't even have to be an economist to know this. People do it reflexively all the time. But, in true Marxist form, you will look at this in awe and wonder, as if you have uncovered some vast, hidden truth.

I'm not going to play your simplistic word games with you. I can't help it if you completely lack reading comprehension, and I'm not going to continue to find new ways of re-stating the obvious.

Continuing to cast smoke screens in the air in an attempt to buy more time and distance from your disaster of a "counter-critique" of the aforementioned article is failing as dismally as the counter-critique itself.
The word games and semantics you delight in engaging in do not detract from the fact that one of Marx's core principles (that labor alone is the source of all value) is flawed and false. You can continue throwing other arguments in the way, or you can come face to face with the flaw in your religion.

You can run, but you cannot hide.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

PS: That you even ACKNOWLEDGE any given thing's utility value (derived from the measure of welfare or satisfaction of an investor or person), flies in the face of the notion that labor creates all value....or will you come back and say, in Marxist style, that such values are merely "illusory."

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
So you are saying that utility value is a subset of value? That shows how little you know, and possibly how little capability you have of understanding the subject matter.

That is NOT what I said, and you know full well. Typical Marxist bait and switch tactics.

You're purposefully being ambiguous and not making a real argument for me to address. MAKE ONE!

We're not talking about utility value vs. exchange value (or we weren't, until you interjected it into the conversation as a smokescreen to veer yourself out of the dangerous waters you found yourself in).

Dipwad! That is what the first part of Das Kapital is about!

Goods and services have an exchange value because they have a utility value, not the other way around. People exchange things because they get more value from the thing they get than the thing they give. NOT THE SAME, AND NOT LESS!

Stating the obvious. No kidding. You don't even have to be an economist to know this. People do it reflexively all the time. But, in true Marxist form, you will look at this in awe and wonder, as if you have uncovered some vast, hidden truth.

Then there are two real types of value that Marx identified. Blatt never said which one he was talking about in his argument. We are to assume that it is one or the other. His argument in complete crap. It serves no purpose, except propaganda.

That's why the obvious must be stated - because some people ignore it!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Wasn't there a whole thread a while ago from Kid on what defines value? IIRC there never was a clear answer to it from Kid, but I couldn't be arsed to go through all the posts so perhaps he did ultimately find a definition that met his internal criteria.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
PS: That you even ACKNOWLEDGE any given thing's utility value (derived from the measure of welfare or satisfaction of an investor or person), flies in the face of the notion that labor creates all value....or will you come back and say, in Marxist style, that such values are merely "illusory."

-=Vel=-

Return of the BAM!