See, this is part of why I’m not a communist. Not all value derives from labor, some is naturally occuring.
The other sticking point is the inherent value of labor. In communist theory (as I understand it) the value of the final product is equal to the value of the labor required to produce it. But this means that if the product is, well, crap, then the labor put into it is without much value. That’s a no-sell for me. You can say that the value of the labor was wasted, but to say it doesn’t exist? I can’t agree to that proposition.
See, this is part of why I’m not a communist. Not all value derives from labor, some is naturally occuring.
this is factually wrong. all value derrives from labour if not ,name a single object created without labour.
What ever is “Naturally occuring” still needs Labour to Harvest or to transport or even to watch it and enjoy its beauty.
What labor is required for a sunset, or a clear mountain stream? What labor created the jet stream?
To harvest the ocean of fish requires labor, but to stock it did not. And a balanced ocean ecosystem has value whether or not it is utilized, as does a forest or the clear mountain stream.
So you can not sell the Jetstream you can sell the Jet that uses the Jetstream , the Sailoboat that uses the Wind or you can build it yourself all of which need labour , without this labour the “Jetstream” has no value.
we talk about Base Value NOT “Superstructure” Value , thinks you can touch … not like … “i enjoy sunsets value” but even that requires some labour or at least the absence of other labour necessities… , you made absent before hand by labouring…
Freetime also derives its value and existance FROM Labour.
And you’ve exemplified the heart of my gripe: There is more to value than economic value. I’m not talking about selling the jetstream, but about how it provides stable weather patterns to both the American Midwest and Central Europe. There is value in that.
I appreciate your base / superstructure argument but I don’t understand it without further explanation. A lot of the superstructure half do seem related to production: education and art, to name just two.
And you’ve exemplified the heart of my gripe: There is more to value than economic value.
yes the Superstructure.
Superstructrue is exactly this unmessurable mass that is not “konret” that doesnt have owners , can not be divided or counted etc…
Art is aexample on how it work. Like “who Produces the Art for whom” is the “Relation of Production”… The Flemish Masters painted those tha t could affort their Product the Elite … therefore the Art from this era is filled with many many Ruler and Aristocrat Paintings , showing their Welth and Power… In the Sowjet Union the Painting where comissend by the working class (or in a working class Ideology) the Painting therefore Depict Socialist Themes etc. “Collectivism / Struggle / Classwar” …,
and dont forget the Mirror relation <—>the other Art the “rebell” side of art is also shaped by the “Base” , even if it critizes it , it will critize its base…
Btw this “superstructure and Base” thing is the “Dialectical and Historical Materialism” … very usefull concept to analyse the world with. Its like the “Atom of the Process” … there is always a “Base Need” that will shape “its Superstructure” …
Crimea is Ukrainian in western ( “Superstructure”) … but certainly not in the messurable and touchable Soil (“Base” ) .
and as Base shapes the Supersturcture --> every day that passes without Crimea beeing owned by Ukraine --> it belongs to Ukraine a little less --> until its gonna be like California and Mexico <-- --> And the Mirror relation is Ukraine know about this ! --> therefore wants to retake it (in Soil & Base) ,
Not in the “Superstructure” ,in here Ukraine owns it allready , so there is no Issue … the Issue again … stems as always . from the Base … that is Russia “actually” owning it.
Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that nature is not a state of rest and immobility, stagnation and immutability, but a state of continuous movement and change, of continuous renewal and development, where something is always arising and developing, and something always disintegrating and dying away.
The dialectical method therefore requires that phenomena should be considered not only from the standpoint of their interconnection and interdependence, but also from the standpoint of their movement, their change, their development, their coming into being and going out of being.
Nature is the test of dialectics, and it must be said for modern natural science that it has furnished extremely rich and daily increasing materials for this test, and has thus proved that in the last analysis nature’s process is dialectical and not metaphysical, that it does not move in an eternally uniform and constantly repeated circle, but passes through a real history. Here prime mention should be made of Darwin, who dealt a severe blow to the metaphysical conception of nature by proving that the organic world of today, plants and animals, and consequently man too, is all a product of a process of development that has been in progress for millions of years.
See, this is part of why I’m not a communist. Not all value derives from labor, some is naturally occuring.
The other sticking point is the inherent value of labor. In communist theory (as I understand it) the value of the final product is equal to the value of the labor required to produce it. But this means that if the product is, well, crap, then the labor put into it is without much value. That’s a no-sell for me. You can say that the value of the labor was wasted, but to say it doesn’t exist? I can’t agree to that proposition.
this is factually wrong. all value derrives from labour if not ,name a single object created without labour. What ever is “Naturally occuring” still needs Labour to Harvest or to transport or even to watch it and enjoy its beauty.
What labor is required for a sunset, or a clear mountain stream? What labor created the jet stream?
To harvest the ocean of fish requires labor, but to stock it did not. And a balanced ocean ecosystem has value whether or not it is utilized, as does a forest or the clear mountain stream.
you have to walk there …
Edit: wait needs more indeep…
So you can not sell the Jetstream you can sell the Jet that uses the Jetstream , the Sailoboat that uses the Wind or you can build it yourself all of which need labour , without this labour the “Jetstream” has no value.
we talk about Base Value NOT “Superstructure” Value , thinks you can touch … not like … “i enjoy sunsets value” but even that requires some labour or at least the absence of other labour necessities… , you made absent before hand by labouring… Freetime also derives its value and existance FROM Labour.
And you’ve exemplified the heart of my gripe: There is more to value than economic value. I’m not talking about selling the jetstream, but about how it provides stable weather patterns to both the American Midwest and Central Europe. There is value in that.
I appreciate your base / superstructure argument but I don’t understand it without further explanation. A lot of the superstructure half do seem related to production: education and art, to name just two.
yes the Superstructure.
Superstructrue is exactly this unmessurable mass that is not “konret” that doesnt have owners , can not be divided or counted etc…
Art is aexample on how it work. Like “who Produces the Art for whom” is the “Relation of Production”… The Flemish Masters painted those tha t could affort their Product the Elite … therefore the Art from this era is filled with many many Ruler and Aristocrat Paintings , showing their Welth and Power… In the Sowjet Union the Painting where comissend by the working class (or in a working class Ideology) the Painting therefore Depict Socialist Themes etc. “Collectivism / Struggle / Classwar” …,
and dont forget the Mirror relation <—>the other Art the “rebell” side of art is also shaped by the “Base” , even if it critizes it , it will critize its base…
Btw this “superstructure and Base” thing is the “Dialectical and Historical Materialism” … very usefull concept to analyse the world with. Its like the “Atom of the Process” … there is always a “Base Need” that will shape “its Superstructure” …
Crimea is Ukrainian in western ( “Superstructure”) … but certainly not in the messurable and touchable Soil (“Base” ) .
and as Base shapes the Supersturcture --> every day that passes without Crimea beeing owned by Ukraine --> it belongs to Ukraine a little less --> until its gonna be like California and Mexico <-- --> And the Mirror relation is Ukraine know about this ! --> therefore wants to retake it (in Soil & Base) ,
Not in the “Superstructure” ,in here Ukraine owns it allready , so there is no Issue … the Issue again … stems as always . from the Base … that is Russia “actually” owning it.
Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that nature is not a state of rest and immobility, stagnation and immutability, but a state of continuous movement and change, of continuous renewal and development, where something is always arising and developing, and something always disintegrating and dying away. The dialectical method therefore requires that phenomena should be considered not only from the standpoint of their interconnection and interdependence, but also from the standpoint of their movement, their change, their development, their coming into being and going out of being.
Nature is the test of dialectics, and it must be said for modern natural science that it has furnished extremely rich and daily increasing materials for this test, and has thus proved that in the last analysis nature’s process is dialectical and not metaphysical, that it does not move in an eternally uniform and constantly repeated circle, but passes through a real history. Here prime mention should be made of Darwin, who dealt a severe blow to the metaphysical conception of nature by proving that the organic world of today, plants and animals, and consequently man too, is all a product of a process of development that has been in progress for millions of years.