Society without property?

Conflate "Gross Domestic Product" and "We the People".

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Wow there was a lot of action on this thread overnight!I've read all the responses to my posts and I've did a little research into communism via Jar's links and others and have come to believe that even if it were possible to implement a communist culture on a large scale (which I don't believe is possible), that it would collapse upon itself in short order as it doesn't take into account human nature.To implement communism on a global scale one would have to erase cultural, national, and religious boundries. This is just, at this moment, not possible. If you think it is, then please suggest how cause I don't see even a remote possibility of this coming to pass.Just for grins let's say we have a global communist state. In the industrialized world we currently have an over capacity in our factories and in this way capitalism is wasteful. I mean I can get twelve different kinds of mustards by as many brands. I have available for purchase over a 100 different trucks and cars. In a communist state what and who would determine what and how much is produced? If labor was needed in India and not in Indiana, would the workers be forced to move where the work was or forfeit the basic necessities? If you were trained as an engineer but there was an oversupply of them and an undersupply of janitors, would you be forced to be a janitor? I just don't understand how this would all work.Furthermore, there would have to be people in charge overseeing and running things. These would be high status jobs and probably highly reinbursed(?), given better housing maybe or better access to highly prized items. It would seem that one would be throwing off the capitalism masters only to be working for the communism masters. True you may have at least be guarantied the necessities but I feel it will be at the cost of certain freedoms.Not to pick on you Jar, but you were so against the company towns with their company script and their company stores, but if communism were implemented wouldn't be in the same boat, only the company is the communistic government?

Sorry to chime in here -- as you have probably noticed, there are different opinions on what "communism" means. It is possible that my comments may not be relevant to the specific conversation that you are having with jar.--

quote:

---

To implement communism on a global scale one would have to erase cultural, national, and religious boundries.

---

I'm not sure what you mean here. Perhaps you are saying that a homogenization of the world cultures is necessary for communism to succeed? In that case I disagree.--

quote:

---

In a communist state what and who would determine what and how much is produced?

---

First, a "communist state" is an oxymoron.As far as how a communist society would be organized, that is presently unknown, for a practical reason that it is impossible to just come up with a version of the "ideal communist society" and force everyone else to abide by it. How this would come about would be a process of experimentation on the local level, with the results being adopted by other localities, as well as attempts at organization at a supra-local level.At any rate, I would expect that in a communist society people would be organized in small groups -- by village, cooperatives, trade unions, communes, or whatever, which would be democratically run. Representatives would be chosen for region councils -- maybe there would councils devoted to specific industries -- there would be larger councils representing larger groups, and so forth.It would be up the these councils to negotiate within and among themselves as well with the local producers to determine how to allocate resources and responsibility. This would necessarily be complicated, but democracy involving large numbers of people will always be a complicated affair.--

quote:

---

If you were trained as an engineer but there was an oversupply of them and an undersupply of janitors, would you be forced to be a janitor?

---

This is where my vision of communism differs from others. There will indeed be some specialization. However, what determines people's specialization now? From watching my own friends, that is determined largely by the individuals' interests.In my opinion, there would not be such a high degree of specialization. Instead of "line workers" who's reponsibility is to just use one machine to perform one small task, you would see a return of craftmanship, where any individual worker will have a larger role in the entire product.Positions of authority and responsibility would be filled by some combination of election and rotation.Dreary jobs of drudgery would be shared by everyone -- as a college professor, even I would have to take my turn to scrub out the toilets (although, in a more realistic less-that-ideal communist society, we professor may make the students do it -- to build character, don't you know).And of course some people would be clearly unsuited for some tasks, some better suited, and some people may have preferences -- there are some "drudge" jobs, such as laundry, that I don't mind -- maybe I would end up doing more than my "fair share" of the laundry (if the laundry was done communally).--In my opinion, and again this is where I differ from some other socialists, all associations would be voluntary. If you don't like the way the commune is run, leave for a better run cooperative. If you feel that the regional council is unresponsive to your legitimate needs, then your local council can withdraw and join another organization.This would not be an efficient system, if efficiency is measured by maximizing the total number of consumer products that can be produced by a small amount of resources. But if that is the chosen measure of efficiency, then why should we discuss leaving capitalism to begin with?My preferred measure of "efficiency" would not only include a more equitable distribution of resources (both social and material), but also a higher "quality of life" where people are more content and satisfied with what they have and what they are able to achieve.

First, I am not in favor of communism any more than I'm in favor of Capitalism. But most folk that knock communism have never even really looked at it or the philosphic base involved. For example, I pointed you towards the writings of only one person out of literally hundreds who wrote on the subject. That shows a void in your understanding of communism. First, there is no conflict between either democracy or republicanism and communism. The difference between the two examples, the company store and a communist state are enormous. First, in the company store the consumer is restricted to a small world where decisions are made by the company for the company's benefit. In the later, the decisions would be made by the consumers themselves and would be portable beyond the small company town.Let me give you a small example. A communist state would still have currency that is recognized, portable and convertible. You would be paid in that currency. If you wanted, you could set part of that aside to use to move to another region, a different job, a new environment. In the company town that was impossible. You could not put anything aside that could be used outside the company. The token, the script, was NOT currency, was not convertible or portable. Even if you managed to save a nestegg, it could not be spent in the other companies stores or on the general market.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

PhatboyI do understand sacrifice on the part of family,yet is it not the basis of Christianity that we help despite the personal sacrifice? Is it not also a stipulation to have faith.{Remember Jesus stating You state that you know such things as god are true and "real" yet why is such a situation as you face concerning such a challenge since it would be no problem to simply ask for means to provide {remove the mountain} the unfortunate with what they need and thereby provide {it shall remove}such people with what they need.
Nothing shall be impossible to you.The verse says you can literally,physically implement power to move a mountain,what possible impasse could food and clothing for destitute people be? Why would such a attempt by you not work at all if Christ himself says that the opposite must occur?Forget suffering.Implement the very things you stand for as your main figure of love and worship insists is within your potential to do?

---

And since you know you cannot see yourself,
so well as by reflection, I, your glass,
will modestly discover to yourself,
that of yourself which you yet know not of

Every once in awhile, God has a sense of humor. What better way to put me in my place than to have an atheist tell me how to do it!Your post was heartfelt and unarguable. Truly a Christian can do all things. (Through Christ Who strengthens us.)This post shows WHY America is NOT a Christian Nation as is often claimed. Even the Christians (Especially the Christians) would rather be comfortable than co-laborers with Christ. A true Christian nation would in all probability be a socialist/communist one. Some even suggest that the ONLY reason that America was "blessed" with so much wealth was that it was our national mandate BY God to give it all away....which we have failed to do.And on a personal level, I truly have little cause for complaint. I am still comfortable, after all.You and I have argued before over a dance without a choreographer.
Our beliefs have been declared to be quite different, and yet, somehow, you have voiced a stronger faith than I possess.*shakes head* Thank you! I bet when you were a kid that you played nice even when the teacher/parent was not watching!
No wonder you have never needed a choreographer...although I believe that He is delighted with you anyway!

Wouldn't something have to take place in order to make citizens care for other citizens equally?
Let me explain.
I don't think there has been a society in history where someone would (with all other factors other than relationship being equal) care equally for a stranger who they had nothing in common with, then for a stranger who shared their culture, than for a stranger who shared their culture and nation, then for a stranger who shared those 2 things and lived in their community, than for someone who shared those 3 things and they had met, than for someone they had met and had liked, than for a distant family member or close friend, than a close family member.Say you live in a world commune and for some reason enough of some resource wasn't produced for the entire population, how would the choice be made as to who gets what?Wouldn't man put more emphasis on providing for themselves and their local community than for some far away community. And that’s not even including the problems of transportation.
I would contend that in order for communism to work the homogenization of not only culture and boarders, but also families, communities, and religions would have to take place. Its human nature to provide more for those with whom we share emotional bonds, even if the need is equal. This would lead to resource inequality, which would start the slippery slope into wealth, trade, capitalism, and the end of communism.
The reason, as people talked about earlier, communism can work in small groups, I believe is because that in these groups:
1. Approximately equal Emotional bonds could be maintained between one citizen and the rest of the community because the group is small enough for these bonds to arise. Where in larger groups, the same level of interaction and familiarity cannot be achieved.
2. Non-vital resources acquired by a small group can be shared by that small group because the group is small enough (geographically) for transportation not to be a problem. In large groups there is no logical way for me to share, say, a spear that can allow for easier hunting with someone that lives 100 miles away from me, much less Nigeria.
3. Vital resources generally don’t exist in amounts that could only support a portion of a small group, there would either be enough food and water, or the group would have to move/find alternative sources. Large groups, however, can and will hurt local ecosystems (over hunting, over harvesting, etc) that otherwise would have been able to support a portion of the group for a very long time.The problem with large scale communism, as I see it, isn't that it couldn't work under ideal conditions, but that doesn't take into account the fact that the our planet contains a limited amount of scarce yet desirable resources, nor can it do a good enough job of dealing with unforeseen circumstances. First, as I showed above, its not purely a communication problem, second even though the internet may reduce communication problems, it does not solve them. The internet does not make it possible for a person to have a relationship with every single person on earth, within a country, or within a large community, at the same level that a small community would.
The only way large scale communism could work is if decisions were not left to humans. Machines would be required in order to make decisions based not on emotions but on numbers.This is bringing out the inner nerd in me but it would require a system like in the movie The Matrix in which machines controlled all real world aspects of human life, and the only way such lives could be fulfilling is if our minds were put into a world like the Matrix, where capitalism would be practiced thus destroying the entire point of communism in the first place.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-14-2005 03:18 AMThis message has been edited by StormWolfx2x, 04-14-2005 01:29 PM

quote:

---

Wouldn't something have to take place in order to make citizens care for other citizens equally?

---

No of course not. The citizens work for their own interests, according to the demand for their services, and rewarded according to their prpoprtional efficiency. Where in this is there any requirement for any one caring for any one else particularly?

quote:

---

Say you live in a world commune and for some reason enough of some resource wasn't produced for the entire population, how would the choice be made who gets be made who gets what. Wouldn't man put more empahasis on providing for themselves and their local community than for some far away community. And thats not even including the problems of transportation.

---

Yes of course. So what? I mean, one suitable solution to the alleged problem is simply to provide the good to whoever was willing to pay the most for it, i.e., whoever was willing to carry out the most socially necessary labour for the rest of us. Thats suitably fair and equitable.Now, a common resposne to that sort of suggestion is "thats capitalism". But its not, becuase there are no owners of capital involved. The idea that communism depends on some special degree of care, or a special mindset, is completely false. Marx specifically denounces any and all such propositions as Utopian.

quote:

---

I would contend that in order for communism to work the homogenization of not only culture and boarders, but also families, communities, and religions would have to take place, otherwise its human nature to provide more for those with whom they share emotional bonds, even if the need is equal. This would lead to resource inequality, which would start the slippery slope into wealth, trade, capitalism, and the end of communism.

---

No it will not. Capitalism is neither characterised nor defined by inequality. It is defined by the existance of nodes of capital accumulation, and the exploitation of human labour power which is not correctly remunerated.As is and always has been absolutely explicit in Capital, there WILL be inequalities in communism, because not all human beings are equal. That is a given. What is not a given is the system of theft that capitalism employs. Communism rewards all producers for their production directly and honestly.

quote:

---

The problem with large scale communism, as I see it, isn't that it couldn't work under ideal conditions, but that doesn't take into account the fact that the our planet contains a limited amount of scarce yet desirable resources, nor can it do a good enough job of dealing with unforeseen circumstances.

---

But it does take that into account. It merely asserts that this is not a good enough excuse to operate a system like capitalism that creates scarcity artificialy in order to keep prices up. And Communism will certainly do a much better job at dealing with unforseen circumstances, becuase communism does not exhibit the blind short-termist profit-maximising behaviour of capitalism.

quote:

---

The internet does not make it possible for a person to have a relationship with every single person on earth, within a country, or within a large community, at the same level that a small community would.

---

But they do not need to. I have pointed out already: Communism does not depend on altruism, or caring, or mutual respect, or anything at all of that nature. And in point of fact, this altruism stuff is not even relevant to primitive communism, as anyone who ahas experienced the bickbiting, gossip and parochialism of small village communities can attest.

quote:

---

The only way large scale communism could work is if decisions were not left to humans. Machines would be required in order to make decisions based not on emotions but on numbers.

---

Complete nonsense I'm afraid. There is no need, nor is it desirable, to remove emotions from the system. The whole aim is to build a system that DOES respond to human needs and desires, and does not treat humans as a resource.This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-14-2005 05:46 AM

quote:

---

I've read all the responses to my posts and I've did a little research into communism via Jar's links and others and have come to believe that even if it were possible to implement a communist culture on a large scale (which I don't believe is possible), that it would collapse upon itself in short order as it doesn't take into account human nature.

---

In what way does it not take into account human nature?I always guffaw when advopcates of capitalism, of all people, make this sort of argument. Firstly, its based on an essentially religious claim about what "human nature" is and the nature oif the Fallen world. Its not surprising becuase capitalism rests on many illogical theist assumptions. But even worse, it is a conclusion that depends on a systematic and purposeful misrepresentation of communism as requiring "altruism" or similar, a claim I have pointed out to your directly, on a number of occassions now, appears neither explicitly or implicitly in communist work anywhere.Kjsimons, I have given you direct statements to that effect multiple times. Are you calling me a liar? If so, support your claim from a communist text. If not, withdraw this slander.

quote:

---

In a communist state what and who would determine what and how much is produced?

---

Mostly supply and demand, for the bulk of economic transactions, and with some level of planning analogous to governemtn or city councils.We know what form this takes when workers are liberated from capitalist oppression, as they briefly were during the Russian Revolution: the Soviet, or workers council. Under the Soviets, the USSR exhibuted an 8% rate of GDP growth, seldom equalled anywhere (although some of this is due to the low level starting point).

quote:

---

If labor was needed in India and not in Indiana, would the workers be forced to move where the work was or forfeit the basic necessities?

---

Roughly in the same way it operates today - the increased demand for labour will attract workers to the region. Except of course, having disposed of border controls and so forth, people can move much more freely and live where they wish.But I can imagibne few circumstances in which labour would be required in this way - its usually simpler to ship products.

quote:

---

If you were trained as an engineer but there was an oversupply of them and an undersupply of janitors, would you be forced to be a janitor?

---

If there is no demand for your engineering skills, then you will need to find some other niche to fill. Remember, nobody has ever claimed that communism makes for a perfect world in which no problems ever arise. If we really had a shortage of janitors, ther solution is obvious: we have a shortage of the socially necessary labour we require. Therefore, we reward those who provide that socially necessary labour. In other words: we pay more.None of this is as complicated as you appear to want it to be. You say that you just can;t see how it would work, bu you seem to be looking for some answer that is arcane and mysterious.I can pose the same question in capitalism: if there was a shortage of janitors, and too many engineers, what would happen? Why, well the market will elevate the value of janitors (in principle - never actually happens in practice though) and discount the value of engineers.If you stopped ASSUMING that Marxism was weird, out-there, and nonsensical, and started treating it as it is, an economic model as methodically sound as any proposed by Smith or Ricardo, I think you would pick it up faster.

quote:

---

Furthermore, there would have to be people in charge overseeing and running things. These would be high status jobs and probably highly reinbursed(?), given better housing maybe or better access to highly prized items. It would seem that one would be throwing off the capitalism masters only to be working for the communism masters. True you may have at least be guarantied the necessities but I feel it will be at the cost of certain freedoms.

---

Now this is where it gets interesting. WHY would they be high status jobs? That is not a given. Seeing as we reward people according to their contribution to the socially necessary labour required to maintain our society, why should the person doing the physical labour, and the person doing the organisational labour, be rewarded differently? In capitalism, the organisational role is higher paid in the form of a bribe to ensure loyalty to the capitalists heirarchical chain of command. We don't need such a bribe, becuase ALL individuals are working for themselves, not a corporation or a boss. Organizational work is merely one type of work.And in fact we know this happens experimentally, because it was what DID happen during the Russian Revolution. Let me remind you that before the RR, communism did not have a theory of the soviet, nor did it (and does not) have a full and comprehensive social model. Its thesis is, liberate the workers and the workers will figure it out. And the way the workers in Russia figured it our was the soviet I mentioned above.The soviet is organised from the bottom up. The person nominated or elected to "lead" is really a functionary of the base membership. They cannot sack anyone; they cannot stop or start work without the workers consent; they have no real power beyond that granted to them voluntarily by the workers themselves. Furthermore, they often rotate frequently, usually annually, meaning that most members will fill the role sooner rather than later.This produces some interesting effects unusual to our capitalist-trained minds. One feature is the promotion of noobs to highly responsible positions - mostly becuase the much more experienced rank-and-file are able to watch them, and veto any gross fuckups. And in so doing, the noobs get their errors corrected and a lot of understanding of the business as a whole. Another example is the personal authority of Lenin - it is common, although completely untrue and slanderous, to accuse Lennin of having been a dictator. I mean, thats what we would expect from the equivelent of the president, the head of the highets forum, right? Except wrong - Lennin lost more votes in the Supreme Soviet than he won, nobody defferred to him, and he was repeatedly overuled by his own subordinates. He didn't have as much power as the modern office manager DESPITE BEING THE NOMINAL HEAD OF STATE.And even so, under certain circumstances, becuase it was an operational requirement, certain industries were run on the "one-man-management" model akin to capitalism, becuase the workers had freely agreed that this was the right way for this function to be carried out.There IS another way. From the bottom up, not the top down. In other words, true Democracy.

Methodologically sound? The whole structure of communist theory is based on the Labor Theory of Value. Unfortuantely, this theorm is faulty and Marx's proof was incorrect. Everything you produce is worth exactly how much someone else is willing to pay for it. Of course prices can be distorted and markets can be inefficient for a number of reasons, but basic capitalist theory holds.Before you do anything else, prove your basic theorm, or admit that communism is devoid of any sensible economics. If this site is really about science and not endless debate, your very next post will be a positive proof of the Labor Theory.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

quote:

---

Methodologically sound? The whole structure of communist theory is based on the Labor Theory of Value. Unfortuantely, this theorm is faulty and Marx's proof was incorrect.

---

It is not incorrect - it is substantially more logical than the default capitalist value theory.

quote:

---

Everything you produce is worth exactly how much someone else is willing to pay for it.

---

Why?

quote:

---

Of course prices can be distorted and markets can be inefficient for a number of reasons, but basic capitalist theory holds.

---

Umm, no it does not: not least becuase the vast majority of people in capitalism are totally disempowered as economic actors. As a result, the economy necessarily reflects only the demans of the elite. It is a political system to maintain class rule.On to the labour theory thoughy; precisely what sort of proof are you after? I'm not going to reproduce Capital for you, and if you really were interested in a proof, its been in print for more than a hundred years so whats the problem?I can of course give you a pretty good outline of the basis of the LTV, but before I do I want you to answer the "why" question above.The simplest available demonstration of the LTV in action is the well known phrase "its the thought that counts" regarding gifts. Actually its not the thought, its the effort, but what we refer to is an expression of that personal investment. An elaborate and expensive gift with the pricetag attached and clearly bought at the last minute is not a great gift. A bad crayon scrawl by your own child, however, is a pricelsess gift.What we recognise is the HUMAN interaction between people; their willingness to expend effort on our behalf. And we have a good way to judge this value, as we know something about how long it must have taken, and how much effort was required. This is how humans assess value in transactions, and is clearly visible in barter-based, non-currency transactions as they still exist today in certain places.Anyway, if you are willing to do research but don;t want to read Marx, you can always try Ronald L. Meek, The Labour Theory Of Value.Edit: Of course, if capitalism ever HAD been able to deliver a compelling critique of the LTV, it would never have need to lie about communist claims, the very claims that I and others have spent this whole thread debunking, would it? It doesn't look good for capitalist theologians.This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-14-2005 08:25 AM

Marx's proof of the LTV in book 2 (I think?) by contradiction would have received half credit at best in one of my economics classes. But, I don't think that you are here to engage in a discussion of economics.I respect the thought that has gone into Marxism, but it just isn't economically viable. Recognizing human interaction and altruistic intent is laudable, but it won't feed and cloth the world.I really wish you hadn't added that last paragraph to your post. It sounds a lot like what a lot of hit-and-run creationist posters who like claim that evolution and the BB theories are but lies by the secular establishment in order to keep us ignorant. Beleive me, I am all for the enrichment of all mankind, but you don't need to resort to this to get your point across.I have studied with some of the 'theologians' of capitalism, and nobody lies about communism or goes out of their way to disparage socialism. It isn't a consideration in the same way biologists don't spend time pondering if the Almighty isn't responsible for genetic mutations.I have read capital (the first 2 books at least) in high school, and it was definitely interesting. I haven't heard of Meek before. I would suggest Milton Friedman's book, Capitalism and Freedom. It's relatively basic economics, but an elegant treatise nonetheless.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

quote:

---

Marx's proof of the LTV in book 2 (I think?) by contradiction would have received half credit at best in one of my economics classes. But, I don't think that you are here to engage in a discussion of economics.

---

Of course I am. Thats the central point.

quote:

---

I respect the thought that has gone into Marxism, but it just isn't economically viable. Recognizing human interaction and altruistic intent is laudable, but it won't feed and cloth the world.

---

Excuse me, but I have repeatedly pointed out, there is no recognition of altruism involved. It is never mentioned. If, as you say, you respect the thought that has gone into Marxism, why do you persistently misrerepresent Marx' argument?Altruism is not going to feed the world. Machines are.

quote:

---

I really wish you hadn't added that last paragraph to your post. It sounds a lot like what a lot of hit-and-run creationist posters who like claim that evolution and the BB theories are but lies by the secular establishment in order to keep us ignorant. Beleive me, I am all for the enrichment of all mankind, but you don't need to resort to this to get your point across.

---

It is true. This is a point I wanted to raise at a later point in this discussion, but I will raise it now. Thos of us who have taken the time and trouble to ACTUALLY investigate Marxism (and I was hardly born a MArxist, btw) have been able to show that a num,ber of persistent allegations against Marxism - such as the appeal to altruism - are totally, completely, utterly false.So, my question is this: who told you those lies, and why do you think they lied to you?I will refrain from speculating why, if you will answer the question.

quote:

---

I have studied with some of the 'theologians' of capitalism, and nobody lies about communism or goes out of their way to disparage socialism. It isn't a consideration in the same way biologists don't spend time pondering if the Almighty isn't responsible for genetic mutations.

---

No that is mistaken - becuase you have resorted to several of those lies. Such as the completely false allegation that that Marxism would pay everyone the same, and therefore remove the incentive to work. Thats a flat out lie, isn't it?Why do YOU think you were lied to?

quote:

---

I have read capital (the first 2 books at least) in high school, and it was definitely interesting. I haven't heard of Meek before. I would suggest Milton Friedman's book, Capitalism and Freedom. It's relatively basic economics, but an elegant treatise nonetheless.

---

Why don't you just get on with explaining the Capitalist value theory and its operational principles so that we can carry on a constructive discussion? I will reciprocate.By the way, Friedman is not taken very seriously by Marxist scholars. IIRC Meek deals with him quite well.Edit: Ah silly, me, I had forgotton that Friedman was the charlatan who brought down Chile's economy. To say that Friedman is not taken seriously is a bit of an understatement; it would be more accurate to say he is thought of as a laughing stock, and a primary example of the Cult of Heroism that prevents Capitalist economics achieving sufficient rigour to be useful.This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-14-2005 09:13 AM

This topic has piled up a lot of messages pretty fast.My instinct is to give it a temporary closure, for a cooling off, and to give everyone a chance to read the many messages.I will, however, leave it open, at least for a while.But shall we strive for great quality of messages, and try to cut back on the quantity?Adminnemooseusps: This message probably applies to that other topic, that also has a pegged in the red activity meter.

---

Rather than an edit...Alexander, you say you read the first two books of Capital, right? Why not the third? Unfortunately this sort of poor, lazy reserach seems to be common. Lets have a look at the TOC of the third book and see what you missed, shall we:

quote:

---

Capital Volume III
The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole

​

Part I
The Conversion of Surplus-Value into Profit and of
the Rate of Surplus-Value into the Rate of Profit

​

Ch. 1: Cost-Price and Profit
Ch. 2: The Rate of Profit
Ch. 3: The Relation of the Rate of Profit to the Rate of Surplus-Value
Ch. 4: The Effect of the Turnover on the Rate of Profit
Ch. 5: Economy in the Employment of Constant Capital
Ch. 6: The Effect of Price Fluctuations
Ch. 7: Supplementary Remarks

​

Part II
Conversion of Profit into Average Profit

​

Ch. 8: Different Compositions of Capitals in Different Branches of Production and Resulting Differences in Rates of Profit
Ch. 9: Formation of a General Rate of Profit (Average Rate of Profit) and Transformation of the Values of Commodities into Prices of Production
Ch. 10: Equalisation of the General Rate of Profit Through Competition. Market-Prices and Market-Values. Surplus-Profit.
Ch. 11: Effects of General Wage Fluctuations on Prices of Production
Ch. 12: Supplementary Remarks

​

Part III
The Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall

​

Ch. 13: The Law as Such
Ch. 14: Counteracting Influences
Ch. 15: Exposition of the Internal Contradictions of the Law

​

Part IV
Conversion of Commodity-Capital and Money-Capital into Commercial
Capital and Money-Dealing Capital (Merchant's Capital)

​

Ch. 16: Commercial Capital
Ch. 17: Commercial Profit
Ch. 18: The Turnover of Merchant's Capital
Ch. 19: Money-Dealing Capital
Ch. 20: Historical Facts about Merchant's Capital

​

Part V
Division of Profit into Interest and Profit of Enterprise.
Interest-Bearing Capital.

​

Ch. 21: Interest-Bearing Capital
Ch. 22: Division of Profit. Rate of Interest. Natural Rate of Interest.
Ch. 23: Interest and Profit of Enterprise
Ch. 24: Externalisation of the Relations of Capital in the Form of Interest-Bearing Capital
Ch. 25: Credit and Fictitious Capital
Ch. 26: Accumulation of Money-Capital. Its Influence on the Interest Rate.
Ch. 27: The Role of Credit in Capitalist Production
Ch. 28: Medium of Circulation and Capital; Views of Tooke and Fullarton
Ch. 29: Component Parts of Bank Capital
Ch. 30: Money-Capital and Real Capital. I
Ch. 31: Money-Capital and Real Capital. II
Ch. 32: Money-Capital and Real Capital. III
Ch. 33: The Medium of Circulation in the Credit System
Ch. 34: The Currency Principle and the English Bank Legislation of 1844
Ch. 35: Precious Metal and Rate of Exchange
Ch. 36: Pre-Capitalist Relationships

​

Part VI
Transformation of Surplus-Profit into Ground-Rent

​

Ch. 37: Introduction
Ch. 38: Differential Rent: General Remarks
Ch. 39: First Form of Differential Rent (Differential Rent I)
Ch. 40: Second Form of Differential Rent (Differential Rent II)
Ch. 41: Differential Rent II First Case: Constant Price of Production
Ch. 42: Differential Rent II Second Case: Falling Price of Production
Ch. 43: Differential Rent II Third Case: Rising Price of Production
Ch. 44: Differential Rent Also on the Worst Cultivated Soil
Ch. 45: Absolute Ground-Rent
Ch. 46: Building Site Rent. Rent in Mining. Price of Land.
Ch. 47: Genesis of Capitalist Ground-Rent

​

Part VII
Revenues and their Sources

​

Ch. 48: The Trinity Formula
Ch. 49: Concerning the Analysis of the Process of Production
Ch. 50: Illusions Created by Competition
Ch. 51: Distribution Relations and Production Relations
Ch. 52: Classes

​

Frederick Engels.
Supplement to Capital, Volume Three

​

A) Introduction
B) The Law of Value and Rate of Profit
C) The Stock Exchange

​

Fragment on Heine

---

So, let me see if undertsnad this correctly: You claim to have read Marx, and indeed read the discussion of the LTV in vol 2, but did NOT read the book - the thickest of the three IIRC - in which the full discussion is given? I mean, you missed the ENTIRETY of the discussion of the tendency for the rate of profit to decline!!!!Thats not adequate research. No wonder your perceptions are so distorted. But let me guess - your teacher told you you didn't need to read Volume 3, right?This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-14-2005 09:24 AM