Anti-Duhring, Part I, Philosophy, VI – Natural Philosophy. Cosmogony, Physics, Chemistry - Part 5 of 6

Duhring sees latent heat as coming to his rescue. But, again, it only reflects his own lack of knowledge. If we take the examples set out above, of the transfer of mechanical energy, an amount of energy used to raise the ball at one end of the Newton's Cradle, is released, in equal amount, when the ball drops and strikes the next ball, and so on on, until the last ball rises. In similar manner, if a certain amount of heat is applied to a given quantity of water, raising its temperature, the energy is then stored in the water, and could be, in turn, transferred to something else, in equal measure. But, Duhring points out that, in turning water to steam, given a boiling point of 100⁰ C, more than 100⁰ C of heat is required, and a similar thing occurs when water is frozen, or ice turned to water.

Science, again, provided the answer to this apparent conundrum, and, again, it involves quantity being transformed into quality. When heat is applied to water, the water gets hotter, in equal amount. This heat consists of the water molecules moving around faster, as is the case with all matter. But, when water turns to steam, this represents not just a quantitative change in its temperature, but a qualitative change in its form/state. Now, rather than water molecules simply vibrating at a faster pace, the bonds that hold them together are broken, and the breaking of the bonds itself requires additional energy. The additional energy is latent heat.

“If, the steam is again transformed into water, by cooling and the water, in its turn, into ice, the same quantity of heat as was previously tied up is now again set free, i.e., is perceptible and measurable as heat. This liberation of heat on the condensation of steam and the freezing of water is the reason why steam is only gradually transformed into water, when cooled to 100°, and why a mass of water at freezing point temperature is only very gradually transformed into ice.” (p 78)

In other words, the heat energy has not simply disappeared, but has been used to do work, in the form of loosening the bonds between molecules. When those bonds are restored, as the steam becomes water, that energy is once more released.

“Now it is clear that the individual molecules of a body are endowed with far greater energy in the gaseous state than they are in the fluid state, and in the fluid state likewise than in the solid state. The tied-up heat has, therefore, not disappeared, it has merely been transformed, and has assumed the form of molecular tension.” ( p 79)

It is why we have steam engines rather than hot water engines, for example. But, a similar principle is involved in Einstein's equation E = MC2, except that the energy released, here, is not the result of that required to hold molecules to each other, but that released when the atom itself is split.

At the time Engels was writing, the theory of heat energy was itself only a hypothesis, because “as yet no one has ever seen a molecule, let alone one in vibration. For this very reason, like the whole theory which is still very young, it is certain to be full of defects but it can at least explain what happens without in any way coming into conflict with the indestructibility and uncreatability of motion, and it can even account in a precise way for the whereabouts of heat during its transformation.” (p 79-80)

But the development of the electron microscope did enable confirmation of the hypothesis and was able to observe the vibration of molecules. Later discoveries, however, throw into question the other specific aspects of Engels' account of the creation of the Earth and other rocky planets out of gaseous clouds, as described by Kant. This is certainly the origin of stars, and gas giants like Jupiter, but the latest theories suggest that the rocky planets, like, Earth, Mars Venus, etc., were created from the slow coming together of dust particles, under the influence of gravity as they circled the Sun. These dust particles are, themselves, the product of the previous explosions of stars in the earlier development of the universe, and which resulted in the creation of the heavier elements such as iron, gold and so on, which were seeded across the universe.

“Thus the difficulty about which Herr Dühring mumbles mysteriously does not exist, and even if we may come up against defects and gaps in applying the theory cosmically — defects and gaps which are due to our imperfect means of knowledge — we nowhere come up against theoretically insuperable obstacles. Here too the bridge from the static to the dynamic is the external impulse — the cooling or heating brought about by other bodies acting on the object which is in a state of equilibrium. The further we explore this natural philosophy of Dühring's, the more impossible appear all attempts to explain motion out of immobility or to find the bridge over which the purely static, the resting, can by itself pass to the dynamic, to motion.” (p 80-81)

Back To Part 4

Northern Soul Classics - Something Fishy Is Going On - Universal Mind

 

Friday Night Disco - Flowers (We Hold The Key) - The Emotions

 

Michael Roberts Fundamental Errors, VI – Inflation and Roberts' Confusion of Money With Money Tokens, and New Value With Total Value - Part 6 of 7

As Marx describes, the same rise in productivity would also reduce the value of wage goods/value of labour-power, and so raise the rate of surplus value. So, what we would actually have would be 2340 c + 540 v + 660 s, and so a rate of profit of 22.92%. Indeed, if we were to look even more closely, we find that the cost of reproducing the exploiting classes is also reduced by 10%, so that the proportion of profit left over for accumulation would grow even more.

What is correct in Roberts's statement, however, is that, as a result of this rise in productivity, the unit value of commodities, on average, would fall. If, in Year 1, total output consisted of 3,000 commodities, with total output value being £3000, average unit value is £1. In year 2, 3,900 commodities are produced with an output value of £3,800, an average unit value of £0.97, and, in Year 3, assuming no further accumulation, the 3900 commodities would have an output value of 3540, giving an average unit value of £0.91.

The total values of output have gone from £3,000 to £3,800, to £3540. Consequently, the money equivalent has changed accordingly. As Marx sets out in A Contribution To The Critique of Political Economy, and in Capital III, the amount of currency – what Roberts calls “money supply” - would have to change accordingly, if prices were to reflect values. Assume that currency takes the form of Pound coins, and that each coin circulates 10 times a year. In Year 1, 300 coins are required in circulation, and in Year 2, 380 coins, falling to 354, in Year 3. That, of course, assumes no change in the value of the £ coin itself. But, as Marx sets out, there is no reason to believe that to be the case either.

If the Pound coins are themselves tokens representing a quantity of gold, the same fall in unit values arising from changed productivity, also affects the value of gold, and thereby of the £ coin. Or, to maintain stable rather than falling unit prices, the state might reduce the amount of gold/social labour-time, represented by the £. With a fiat currency, the state determines the value of the currency/standard of prices simply by increasing the supply of currency by more or less than is required to reflect the changed value of total output. To be fair that is what Roberts and Carchedi also say, in their own way, even though the path by which they reach this conclusion is littered with errors. Roberts says,

“Because the monetary authorities in capitalist governments are tied to a monetarist theory that claims that, if they boost money supply, that will restore any slowdown in the growth of value. That leads to a gap between the growth in (circulating) money and new value growth. The difference between the two is the ‘value rate of inflation’.”

What they describe, here, is not a “value rate of inflation”, but simply inflation, as analysed by Marx, i.e. an inflation of the currency supply, in excess of that required to circulate the value of commodities. They choose this tortuous definition in order to justify their acceptance of the popular definition of “inflation” as being a rise in the general level of prices. They recoil from the actual Marxist definition of inflation as a monetary phenomenon, because they want to distance themselves from the association of that definition with Monetarism, and its right-wing political associations.

Moreover, whilst Keynesians put forward the idea that a rise in currency supply can restore a slowdown in economic growth, usually, in combination with the use of such additional liquidity to finance a budget deficit, that is not the position of Monetarists or Miseans. Only if you equate currency supply with central bank interest rates can that argument be made, but these are two different things, as Marx and Engels set out in Capital III, and elsewhere.

The Monetarists and Miseans argued that, in the 1930's, for example, interest rates were too high, and that a reduction in interest rates would lead to firms borrowing more, to accumulate additional capital, so as to increase growth. Mandel, whose work Roberts is assessing in his article, noted, as did Keynes, that in conditions where there is already a glut of commodities on the market, and inadequate demand for them, a reduction in interest rates is not going to encourage firms to borrow more to produce more, and add to that glut.

Back To Part 5

Anti-Duhring, Part I, Philosophy, VI – Natural Philosophy. Cosmogony, Physics, Chemistry - Part 4 of 6

The bridge from a motionless to a dynamic state, in mechanics, as seen with Newton's Cradle, is an external impulse. A hand raises the first ball, loading it with potential energy, which it releases, into the second ball, and so on, until the final ball moves. Mechanical energy is involved in raising the first ball, as human muscle is used to overcome the effect of gravity on the mass of the ball. The potential energy stored in the ball, at its point of apogee, did not come from nowhere, and, when the ball is released, the same mechanical energy is what is transmitted to the final ball, sending it into motion. Engels uses the example of a stone raised and suspended on a rope.

“Even the very simple fact that the stone is hanging up there represents mechanical work, for if it remains hanging long enough, the rope breaks, as soon it is no longer strong enough to bear the weight of the stone as a result of chemical decomposition. But it is to such simple basic forms, to use Herr Dühring's language, that all mechanical processes can be reduced, and the engineer is still to be born who cannot find the bridge from the static to the dynamic, so long as he has a sufficient external impulse at his disposal.” (p 77)

But, motion can take another form, as with an explosion. The movement, then, is not the result of an external impulse, but an internal impulse, though, often, as with, say, gunpowder, this internal impulse requires an external impulse, from a fuse, the striking of a firing pin and so on. Even with nitroglycerine, to explode requires some external impulse such as movement or changes in temperature.

However, if we take a star that explodes in a supernova that is not the result of any external impulse. The star continues to burn because its own gravity is sufficient to pull all its matter towards its centre that is being thrust out from it as a result of continual nuclear reactions that result from that same gravitational force inducing fusion. The star emanates energy in the form of radiation, from those reactions, but this movement of radiation, i.e. of atomic particles, photons etc., derives from an internal rather than external impulse. Over billions of years, as this process depletes the mass of the star, its own gravitational pull is diminished, until it no longer is able to counter the centrifugal force generated by the nuclear explosions, and the star itself explodes, scattering its matter throughout the cosmos.

“To be sure, it is a hard nut and a bitter pill for our metaphysician that motion should find its measure in its opposite, in rest. That is indeed a crying contradiction, and every contradiction, according to Herr Dühring, is contrasense. It is none the less a fact that a suspended stone represents a definite quantity of mechanical motion, which is measurable exactly by the weight of the stone and its distance from the ground, and may be used in various ways at will, for example, by its direct fall, by sliding down an inclined plane, or by turning a shaft.” (p 77)

Dialectics has no problem in expressing motion in its opposite, rest, because it recognises that rest itself is not absolute, but only relative. The mathematical resolution of the problem is provided by calculus, but it, too, requires the acceptance of the existence of a zero in time and space, which, in the real world, cannot exist. This same principle applies in understanding the functioning of the economy, production and exchange, as most clearly seen in the development of marginalist theories. But, the first application of marginalist ideas, was made by Ricardo and Marx, in relation to the theory of differential rent. As Marx, also describes, inputs are, simultaneously, their opposite, outputs, and vice versa. The movement of capital towards those spheres where the rate of profit is highest is what creates an average rate of profit, an equilibrium condition in which there is no longer any impulse driving such a movement, but such an equilibrium is never achieved. The equilibrium, the average rate of profit, exists only as a mathematical abstraction.

“For the dialectical conception the whole antithesis, as we have seen, is only relative; there is no such thing as absolute rest, unconditional equilibrium. Each separate movement strives towards equilibrium, and the total motion again puts an end to the equilibrium. Wherever therefore rest and equilibrium occur they are the result of limited motion, and it is self-evident that this motion is measurable by its result, can be expressed in it, and can be re-established from it in one form or another.” (p 77-8)

Back To Part 3

Forward To Part 5

Michael Roberts Fundamental Errors, VI – Inflation and Roberts' Confusion of Money With Money Tokens, and New Value With Total Value - Part 5 of 7

Roberts says,

“new value growth (which we measure in hours of labour worked by the whole labour force in an economy) tends to slow relative to increased output of commodities. So prices per unit of output should tend to fall, as less labour time is involved in the production of output.”

In other words, he, correctly, assumes productivity growth each year. In that case, the new value component of the value of commodities, and of total output, would, indeed, fall proportionately, but the proportion of congealed value, the value of materials and wear and tear of fixed capital would rise. In other words, if productivity rises by 10%, so that we still have the same 1200 hours of new value produced, this 1200 hours of labour, would not, now, process just 20% more materials etc., but 30%, more.

These materials and fixed capital, were produced in previous years, both the C, and the c (i.e. the replacement of consumed material, and the accumulation of additional materials), illustrated in Marx's formula of the circuit of industrial capital. Consequently, the total value of output would rise to 2600 c + 600 v + 600 s = 3800. Previously, congealed value (constant capital) represented 66.6% of total output value, and as a result of the rise in productivity, and consequent change in the technical composition of capital, it now represents 68.4%.

However, as Marx sets out, in Capital III, Chapter 49, this constant capital consumed in production, must, again, be physically reproduced, on a “like for like” basis, out of current production. That current production has benefited from the 10% rise in social productivity. So, when the 3800 of total output value resolves into its component parts, as reproduction takes place for the following year, the 2600 of value of constant capital preserved in the value of current output, has a value only of 2340, i.e. less social labour-time is required for its production, or put another way, it represents a smaller proportion of total output value, and produces a release of capital.

As Marx puts it,

“In so far as reproduction obtains on the same scale, every consumed element of constant capital must be replaced in kind by a new specimen of the same kind, if not in quantity and form, then at least in effectiveness. If the productiveness of labour remains the same, then this replacement in kind implies replacing the same value which the constant capital had in its old form. But should the productiveness of labour increase, so that the same material elements may be reproduced with less labour, then a smaller portion of the value of the product can completely replace the constant part in kind. The excess may then be employed to form new additional capital or a larger portion of the product may be given the form of articles of consumption, or the surplus-labour may be reduced. On the other hand, should the productiveness of labour decrease, then a larger portion of the product must be used for the replacement of the former capital, and the surplus-product decreases.”

(Capital III, Chapter 49)

The 3800 of total output value resolves into 2340 c + 600 v + 860 (600 s + 260 “profit”). Here, as Marx describes, above, in Chapter 49, the 260 of “profit”, in addition to the produced surplus value, is really an illusion, arising from the release of capital, caused by the rise in productivity.

Suppose no change in the following year, however. The total value of output in that year would, then, be 3540, comprised of 2340 c + 600 v + 600 s. Originally, the rate of profit was 600/(2600 + 600) = 18.75%. Now, however, it is 600/(600 + 2340) = 20.41%. This shows the error of the claims about the law of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, because as Marx sets out, in Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 23, it would only arise if the rise in the technical composition of capital, resulting from a rise in productivity, was greater than the fall in the value composition of capital resulting from the same cause. Moreover, we have only taken into consideration, here, the effects of that change in productivity on the value of the constant capital.

Back To Part 4

Forward To Part 6

Anti-Duhring, Part I, Philosophy, VI – Natural Philosophy. Cosmogony, Physics, Chemistry - Part 3 of 6

The idea of a motionless state of matter is, then, absurd, because for any object, its own visible stasis is only relative to its movement in the universe, and its own internal movement, at an atomic level. Even if we could exclude the latter, Duhring's theory requires that this could apply not only to the single object, but to the entire universe. The theory and observation of cosmic inflation proves that to be false.

Duhring's method of counting back to some initial point combines, then, with the idea that, at each intermediate point, there is cause and effect, a causal chain. If we take the Newton's Cradle, the ball dropped at one end passes its mechanical energy to the next, which passes it to the next, and so on, until the ball at the other end has nothing to transmit its energy to, leading to its motion. The example Engels gives is of a gun being loaded, but the final motion being delayed until such time as the gun is fired.

To apply this to Duhring's theory on the origin of the universe would mean assuming that all the matter existed and was then loaded with energy, as with loading a gun or pulling back the first ball of a Newton's Cradle.

“It is therefore possible to imagine that during its motionless, self-identical state, matter was loaded with energy, and this, if anything at all, seems to be what Herr Dühring understands by the unity of matter and mechanical energy. This conception is nonsensical, because it transfers as absolute to the entire universe a state, which by its nature is relative and which therefore can never be simultaneously applied except to a part of matter. Even if we overlook this point, the difficulty still remains: first, how did the world come to be loaded, since nowadays guns do not load themselves? And second, whose finger then pulled the trigger? We may turn and twist as much as we like, but under Herr Dühring's guidance we always return to — the finger of God.” (p 75)

Duhring moves from cosmology to physics and bemoans that, in relation to the understanding of heat energy, it had not moved forward from the ideas of Robert Mayer, who developed the first law of thermodynamics. He says, we must

“always remember that in the states of motion of matter static relations are also present, and that these latter are not measurable by the mechanical work ... if we previously described nature as a great worker and now construe this expression strictly, we must add that the self-identical states and static relations do not represent mechanical work. So once again we miss the bridge from the static to the dynamic, and if so-called latent heat has so far remained a stumbling-block for theory, we must here too recognise a defect which can least be denied in its cosmic applications” (p 76)

All of this, Engels says, is simply a manifestation that Duhring remains stuck, in trying to provide any basis for the transformation of immobility into movement, but “is nevertheless ashamed to appeal to the only possible saviour, namely, the creator of heaven and earth. If the bridge from the static to the dynamic, from equilibrium to motion, cannot be found even in mechanics, including the mechanics of heat, under what obligation should Herr Dühring be to find the bridge from his motionless state to motion? In this way he neatly extricates himself from his predicament.” (p 76)

Back To Part 2

Forward To Part 4

Michael Roberts Fundamental Errors, VI – Inflation and Roberts' Confusion of Money With Money Tokens, and New Value With Total Value - Part 4 of 7

Marx sets that out in his extended formula for the circuit of industrial capital. 

The value of a commodity, Marx shows, does not, as Smith claimed, resolve entirely into revenues (wages, profit of enterprise, interest, rent, taxes) because these revenues are equal only to the new value added to the commodity by labour in current production, which divides into v + s. But, the value of the commodity is equal not to v + s, but c + v + s, in other words, not only to the new value created in production, but also to the value of the raw materials used in its production, and the wear and tear of the fixed capital. Smith tried to get around this, by the deception of claiming that the raw materials and fixed capital were also the product of labour, to which Marx responded that they too, were not only the product of labour, but, themselves made up of of c + v + s.

When considering total output value, therefore, it is never equal to revenues, to the new value created by labour in the given year, but to the new value created by labour in that year (GDP, National Income) plus the value of the materials and wear and tear of fixed capitals consumed in that production, but which were produced in the previous year, or years prior to that. But, when we come to look, therefore, at the total value of commodities to be circulated, and which have their equivalent value in money, that also cannot be equal to “new value growth (which we measure in hours of labour worked by the whole labour force in an economy)”, as Roberts claims.

Suppose that we have an economy where in a given year the amount of abstract labour/new value is equal to 1,000 hours. This 1,000 hours divides into 500 v, and 500 s. We will ignore the fact that the 500 s is subsequently divided into profit, interest, rent and taxes. In addition to this new value, however, it processes materials and so on, with a value of 2000 hours, produced, not this year, but in previous years. So, whilst the new value, which is represented by GDP/National Income is 1,000, the total output value of the economy is 3,000. It is this 3,000 that must find its equivalent in money, for all of these commodities to be circulated. Marx sets this out in Capital II, III, and in Theories of Surplus Value, dealing with the same error made by Roberts, that was put forward by those of his day, such as Tooke.

“This erroneous conception of the ratio of the quantity of money required for the realisation of revenue to the quantity of money required to circulate the entire social product is the necessary result of the uncomprehended, thoughtlessly conceived manner in which the various elements of material and value of the total annual product are reproduced and annually replaced. It has therefore already been refuted.”

(Capital II, Chapter 20)

If, as a result of capital accumulation, more labour is, then, employed, so that, in the following year, we have 1200 hours of new value produced, dividing into 600 v and 600 s, this in itself is only possible, if, in addition, it has additional materials and fixed capital to work with, materials and fixed capital produced not by labour in the current year, but which was undertaken the previous year/s, and constituted a part of the surplus product in those years! (Indeed, in order to employ the additional labour, it is not only additional material and fixed capital that must have been produced in the previous year, as part of the surplus product, but also the physical components of the variable-capital, i.e. wage goods.)

In other words, if we assume no change in social productivity, the 20% increase in current labour, would require a 20% increase in the amount of materials and fixed capital available for it to process. So, the total value of commodities to be circulated, in the current year, would not rise by this increase in new value production of 200 hours, but would rise by 600 hours, i.e. by an additional 400 hours, constituting the value of the additional materials and wear and tear of fixed capital, processed during this year.

Back To Part 3

Forward To Part 5

Anti-Duhring, Part I, Philosophy, VI – Natural Philosophy. Cosmogony, Physics, Chemistry - Part 2 of 6

Duhring's problem is to show how something arises from nothing, and motion arises spontaneously from immobility. He says,

“The unity of matter and mechanical energy which we call the world medium is what might be termed a logical-real formula for indicating the self-identical state of matter as the presupposition of all enumerable stages of evolution” (p 72)

So, here, when this unity of matter and mechanical energy ceases, motion begins.

Engels notes,

“The logical-real formula is nothing but a lame attempt to make the Hegelian categories “in itself ” [Ansich] and "for itself" [Fürsich] usable in the philosophy of reality. With Hegel, “in itself ” covers the original identity of the hidden, undeveloped contradictions within a thing, a process or a concept; “for itself” contains the differentiation and separation of these hidden elements and their antagonism begins. We are therefore to think of the motionless primordial state as the unity of matter and mechanical energy, and of the transition to movement as their separation and opposition.” (p 73)

This is also set out in chaos theory, and seen in those unstable liquids that appear to spontaneously go from being clear to a bright colour, and, then, flip back again. Of course, what is happening, here, is precisely rapid and cumulative changes at an atomic level, in the liquid, that suddenly manifest at an observable level, and quantity changes to quality.

If we take the popular mass, as it exists prior to bourgeois society, it appears undifferentiated, because the actual differences within it, different degrees of productivity, are not significant. If one direct producer is more efficient than another, it only means that they have a marginally higher standard of living, and so on. It is only when there is a significant development of independent commodity production and exchange, within this popular mass, and so the development of competition, that these existing, and inherent, differences take on importance, leading to winners and losers, and so a differentiation into bourgeois and proletarians.

For Duhring, he wants to make the self-identical, primordial state of matter, the unity of matter and mechanical energy, the equivalent of Hegel's “in itself”, and their separation and opposition as the basis of its motion. But, the primordial mass was, also, not self-identical nor motionless. It was, within itself, a seething process of motion and interaction.

For Duhring, this primordial mass is one self-identical mass of matter and mechanical energy that is neither static nor dynamic. It only becomes dynamic when the mechanical energy is separated from the matter. A limitation of Duhring's theory is itself the equation of energy with mechanic energy, thereby, excluding all other forms of energy, such as heat energy, radiation, and so on.

“We still do not know where mechanical energy was in that state, and how we are to get from absolute immobility to motion without an impulse from outside, that is, without God.” (p 73)

By reducing energy to mechanical energy, he reduces motion to mechanical motion, and so omits from his theory the movement of particles, via radiation, or the movement of molecules, resulting from heat. That was also a failure of earlier materialists. But the question is simple enough, Engels says,

“Motion is the mode of existence of matter. Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, nor can there be. Motion in cosmic space, mechanical motion of smaller masses on the various celestial bodies, the vibration of molecules as heat or as electrical or magnetic currents, chemical decomposition and combination, organic life — at each given moment each individual atom of matter in the world is in one or another of these forms of motion, or in several forms at once. All rest, all equilibrium, is only relative, only has meaning in relation to one or another definite form of motion. On the earth, for example, a body may be in mechanical equilibrium, may be mechanically at rest; but this in no way prevents it from participating in the motion of the earth and in that of the whole solar system, just as little as it prevents its most minute physical particles from carrying out the vibrations determined by its temperature, or its atoms of matter from passing through a chemical process. Matter without motion is just as inconceivable as motion without matter.” (p 74)

The classic example is Newton's Cradle.

Back To Part 1

Forward To Part 3

Michael Roberts Fundamental Errors, VI – Inflation and Roberts' Confusion of Money With Money Tokens, and New Value With Total Value - Part 3 of 7

But, Marx, also, notes that its not only this change in the value of gold that affects the value of the standard of prices. The state that determines this standard, also determines how much gold it contains, i.e. what amount of social labour-time it actually represents. If the value of gold remains constant, but the state decrees that, henceforth, a £ will be equal to only 0.80 grams of gold, it means that the value of a £ is now equal only to 800 hours of social labour-time, not 1,000.

Equally, therefore, prices measured in these £'s will rise, and more £'s will have to be thrown into circulation. When the standard of prices loses any connection to a money commodity such as gold, its connection to social labour-time, however, remains. If, previously, a £, equal to 800 hours of social labour-time, required 1,250 £'s to be thrown into circulation, that will remain the case, because these 1,250 £'s, equal 1 million hours of social labour-time, the total value of commodities, whose equivalent they are. However, now, because in such a fiat system, these £'s cannot be redeemed for gold, if more than these 1,250 £'s are thrown into circulation, their total value, as money, remains 1 million hours of social labour-time, and so the value of each £ is proportionately reduced. If 2,500 £'s are put into circulation, each £ represents only 400 hours of social labour-time, and so prices measured in these £'s would double.

So, when Roberts says “if value grows, money supply will rise to match that value” this confuses and conflates money with currency, the error, also, made by Ricardo, as Marx points out. If value rises, then, as set out above, its equivalent form, i.e. its representation by money, does indeed rise, because this is a tautological relationship, but that is not at all the same thing as saying that “money supply”, i.e. the amount of money as currency will rise to match that value. It may be that the money supply, i.e. the amount of currency put into circulation may well be more or less than is required as the equivalent of this increase in value. For example, if the supply of currency remains constant, that would mean that each unit of currency, for example a £, would, then represent a greater quantity of social labour-time than it did previously, and the average unit prices of commodities would fall. If the total value of commodities rises by 10%, but the amount of currency put into circulation rises by 20%, then each unit of currency is devalued, represents a small quantity of social labour time than it did previously, and so average unit prices rise.

Roberts continues,

“However, new value growth (which we measure in hours of labour worked by the whole labour force in an economy) tends to slow relative to increased output of commodities. So prices per unit of output should tend to fall, as less labour time is involved in the production of output.”

Again, this is replete with errors and inaccuracies. New value growth is not measured by the increase in hours worked by the whole labour force, for several reasons. Firstly, the actual hours worked, are hours of concrete labour, and not the same as abstract labour, which is the measure of value. Secondly, even in terms of that abstract labour, it is only that labour that is socially necessary that is value creating. Thirdly, a lot of labour performed as set out earlier, is necessary for the functioning of society, and for the realisation of already produced value, but is not itself value creating.

Setting all that aside, Roberts' statement is still wrong, because as I have set out elsewhere, he has accepted what Marx called Adam Smith's “Absurd Dogma”, that the value of commodities resolves entirely into revenues, i.e. into the new value created by labour, which Marx shows is impossible.

Roberts wrote,

“The demand for goods and services in a capitalist economy depends on the new value created by labour and appropriated by capital. Capital appropriates surplus value by exploiting labour-power and buys capital goods with that surplus value. Labour gets wages and buys necessities with those wages. Thus it is wages plus profits that determine demand (investment and consumption)”,

which is simply Say's Law as amended by Keynes to account for savings and net investment.

The new value created is equal to v + s, i.e. the current labour performed, whereas the total value of output is equal to c + v + s. So, Roberts, like Smith and Say, (and Keynes) cannot explain where the demand for c comes from. V is paid in wages, and forms the demand for wage goods, whilst s forms the revenues of rent, interest, taxes and profit of enterprise which fund the personal consumption of the exploiting classes, and their state, as well as any any accumulation of capital (itself divided into c + v), but that leaves Roberts as with Smith, Say and Keynes having to explain where the demand for c itself comes from! Given that, as Marx sets out, c forms the largest and growing (as a result of rising productivity, as the basis of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall) component of production, both physically, and in terms of value, that is rather a large black hole in demand that Roberts cannot explain.

Back To Part 2

Forward To Part 4

Northern Soul Classics - Hip City Part 1 & 2 - Junior Walker

 

Friday Night Disco - Funky Music Sho' Nuff Turns Me On - Edwin Starr

 

Anti-Duhring, Part I, Philosophy, VI – Natural Philosophy. Cosmogony, Physics, Chemistry - Part 1 of 6

Philosophy, VI – Natural Philosophy. Cosmogony, Physics, Chemistry

Engels examines Duhring's application of his method to the question of the origins of the Earth and other planets. By this time, the idea that the solar system arose out of a hot gaseous disc, as proposed by Kant, had become established.

“The Kantian theory of the origin of all existing celestial bodies from rotating nebular masses was the greatest advance made by astronomy since Copernicus. For the first time the idea that nature had no history in time began to be shaken. Until then the celestial bodies were believed to have remained in the same permanent orbits and states from the beginning; and even though individual organisms on particular celestial bodies died out, genera and species were nevertheless held to be immutable. It is true that nature was conceived as obviously in constant motion, but this motion appeared as an incessant repetition of the same processes.” (p 70)

These previous conceptions are fully consistent with metaphysics. It imposes an inherently conservative framework, in which whatever exists, and is observed at the time, is taken to be the normal state, a state that has always been and always will be. Any divergence from this normal state, and path is, then, unnatural, and so attempts to prevent any such divergence from the natural balance, or to reverse any such divergence, become reactionary. That may be apparent, for example, in feudal regimes where the order of society is seen as being God given, absolute and eternal, but it applies equally to bourgeois society, which, once established, also, continually reproduces its own ideology, in which things such as markets, commodities, money, capital and wage-labour are presented as universal and eternal. It is seen in other spheres too, for example, the concept of a “balance of nature” is supposed to exist, which must be maintained.

Copernicus had established the model of the solar system we have today, in which the planets orbit the Sun, rather than as presented in the Bible, the Earth being at the centre of the universe. Yet, as Engels says, this was, at the time it was proposed, only a hypothesis. It required confirmation. That came in Le Verrier's calculation, based on it, of the necessity of the existence of Neptune, which was, subsequently, discovered, in 1846, by Galle.

Similarly, to Duhring's dismay, spectroscopic maps of the universe, also, proved the existence of the hot gas clouds from which star systems arise, consistent with Kant's theory. But, without the same kind of proof of how such systems arise, it also remained only a hypothesis, which enabled Duhring to pour scorn on it. At the time Engels was writing, no proof was possible, of Kant's hypothesis, but, now, we do have not only the theoretical models of the mechanism by which star systems are formed from nebulae, but we have the powerful telescopes available to actually see this process of star formation in action, in so called stellar nurseries.

“It was really fortunate for Kant that he could be content with going back from the existing celestial bodies to the nebular ball, and that he did not even dream of the self-identical state of matter! It may be remarked in passing that when contemporary natural science describes the Kantian nebular ball as primordial nebula, it is self-evident that this is only to be understood in a relative sense. It is a primordial nebula, on the one hand, because it is the origin of the existing celestial bodies, and on the other because it is the earliest form of matter which up to now we have been able to work back to. This certainly does not exclude but rather implies the supposition that matter passed through an infinite series of other forms before the nebular stage.” (p 72)

Again, although this could only be hypothesised, at that time, the Big Bang theory set out the mechanism by which that transpired, whilst the mapping of the existing, observable universe conforms to the computer simulations of that process, and the mapping of cosmic background microwave radiation is consistent with the residual effect from it.

Back To V - Time and Space

Forward To Part 2

Predictions For 2025, Prediction 5 – Blair-Rights Challenge Blue Labour Leadership

Prediction 5 – Blair-Rights Challenge Blue Labour Leadership

Starmer was seen as one of the vanguard of Blairism, a view he seemed to encourage by his prominent role in leading the campaign, under Corbyn, for a second EU referendum, to overturn Brexit. But, the reality is that he is either the willing captive of the far-right, Zionist, Blue Labour Tendency within the Labour Party, that acts as a party within a party, with its own funding channelled through various billionaires and millionaires, often based in The Cayman Islands, or other tax havens, or else he is the active leader of that Tendency.

The far, right, Zionist, and nationalist nature of Stamer's politics has been shown not only in his rapid adoption of the far right's flagship policy, and crowning achievement, so far, of Brexit, but by his other, sovereigntist, monarchist and uber nationalist policies, whose visible manifestation is merely the gut-wrenching flag waving and forelock tugging to to all of the undemocratic, feudalistic institutions, but, also, in the overtly racist language and actions adopted in relation to Palestinians, as well as in relation to immigrants, and immigration. Again, the visible manifestation of that ideology, in the visits to the Italian fascists, to compare notes, is the least objectionable aspect of it. It simply makes it clear to all what the ideology, the political platform and the direction of travel of Blue Labour is. We have seen it before with Pilsudski, Mussolini, and Mosley.

However, as I have set out before, these reactionary, petty-bourgeois nationalist politics of Blue Labour do not represent the interests either of the ruling-class as owners of fictitious-capital, nor of the real, large-scale socialised industrial capital, upon which they ultimately depend. Those interests require membership of the EU, and in that, those interests tally with those of the working-class itself, objectively, also, as the collective owners of that socialised capital. It is no wonder that Blue Labour did so badly in the last General Election, getting even less votes than Corbyn's Labour obtained even in 2019, let alone 2017. No wonder too that, as Starmer and Blue Labour has gone even further to the Right in its pursuit of those far-right, nationalist politics, it has seen its popularity shatter even more, as its core, progressive, working class base rushes away from it in search of even just, more liberal, modernist, and democratic alternatives.

Blue Labour, now, not only stands lower in the opinion polls than the hated Tories that voters turfed out only a matter of months ago, but even lower than Reform, the even further Raving Right, than the Tories! Having basically gutted Labour's membership base and organisation with their witch hunts and purges, Blue Labour has now effectively eviscerated its electoral base too, reducing it to a level of insignificance not seen since its inception as a parliamentary party. Yet, it has done that even as it has a massive majority of seats in parliament, due solely to the fraudulent nature of the British electoral system that amounts to overt ballot rigging. But, that simply emphasises how fragile that superficial parliamentary representation is. It is a total fiction, not just out of line with the interests of the ruling-class and its state, but even out of line with the current ideas and wishes of the vast majority of the electorate. It is a fiction that must explode in contact with reality.

According to numerous inside political sources, the Blair-Rights, and others, are already plotting and organising for the removal of Starmer, whose own personal performance has been abysmal, even in terms of the abysmal politics and performance of Blue Labour as a whole. As I have set out, elsewhere, the key moment for the Blair-Rights is going to be the local elections in the Spring. Given the cycle of local elections, Blue Labour would be expected to not do so badly, but all of the current evidence suggests that it is going to do appallingly badly. Reform may improve their position, as the Tories are already splitting, with many of them defecting to Reform, at the same time as the more liberal, progressive, professional middle-class Conservatives peel off to the Liberals, and even Greens. Reform will no doubt get a further boost from a Trump Presidency, let alone any millions headed its way from the likes of Elon Musk.

At the same time, Blue Labour is seeing its own core vote haemorrhage to more liberal and progressive alternatives, be it the Liberals, Greens, or the various independents, who are being pulled by political gravity towards some kind of alliance if not formal organisation. Over the last few years, the Liberals and Greens have been gaining support at an increasing pace, as Blue Labour has surged to the Right. The local elections will see that trend accelerate even faster. That will be the point at which the Blair-Rights begin to make their move. Whether they succeed in removing Starmer at the first strike is uncertain, but to do so they will require the backing of the trades unions, already, themselves, being antagonised by Starmer and Blue Labour, with its anti-working class agenda, and paltry pay offer to public sector workers. The trades unions, keen to back any slightly progressive movement, and chance to salvage the hope that Labour might be able to recover its electoral fortunes, will be likely to subordinate themselves to the Blair-Rights for that purpose.

The Blair-Rights, of course, much as happened with the Popular Front in France, in the last elections, and as happens with all such Popular Fronts, will simply use the trades unions as useful idiots to achieve their own goals, before ditching them. The Blair-Rights have always wanted to free themselves from the trades unions, and current conditions give them an opportunity to do that, once they have defeated Blue Labour, and brought about a wider realignment. The outlines of that are fairly clear, and were drawn with the abortive alliance that was Change UK. Change UK was the epitome of Blairism, as the representative of conservative social-democracy, and agent of the ruling-class and its interests.

The continued disaster that is Brexit, the fact that the large majority of voters recognise it as being a disaster that they, now, want to reverse, combined with the fact that Starmer and Blue Labour have tied themselves to it, as it sinks, will become even more an albatross for them, as the ridiculous idea of a Blue Labour Brexit that works, becomes ever more apparently impossible. Some commentators have even noted that Starmer's pronouncements now sound like the ravings and inanities of Trump, in their formulation. Having failed with the EU, Starmer and Blue Labour will be driven to seek salvation themselves in the arms of Trump, in the company of their international bedfellows, such as Netanyahu. That of itself is likely to be too much for the ruling-class, and its Blair-Right representatives in Britain.

An electorally shattered Blue Labour in the elections, an increasing challenge to Starmer, a surging Liberal and Green alternative to it, will open the door for the Blair-Rights to propose a new realignment to fight off the drift to the Right. It will draw together the Conservative rump, after the Tories have split to Reform, the Liberals, and will, thereby, also form a pole of attraction for Greens. The Left must be ready to orientate towards it, to warn of the dangers of such Popular Fronts, as seen in France, but, also, to build within it, from the grass roots upwards, a real socialist alternative. Ironically, given Starmer's former role, the main thrust of this new formation is going to be the need to join the EU, to end the madness of Brexit. Again, the Left should be ready to intervene within that drive to challenge the Blair-Right narrative, and to argue the need to join the EU on the basis of building an EU wide, workers movement, breaking down national borders, and working towards the creation of a Workers' Europe.

Back To Prediction 4

Michael Roberts Fundamental Errors, VI – Inflation and Roberts' Confusion of Money With Money Tokens, and New Value With Total Value - Part 2 of 7

The total value of commodities can rise for two basic reasons. Firstly, more commodities, in total are produced, with more labour, thereby, being expended. In other words, assuming no change in productivity, there is just an increase, in total, of the amount of labour employed, in the production of this greater mass of commodities. Unit values of those commodities remain constant. Secondly, the total number of commodities produced may remain constant, but a fall in social productivity means that each one of them, on average, requires more labour for its production. In that case, the average unit value of commodities rises. Put another way, if productivity falls, but the amount of social labour-time remains constant, fewer commodities are produced, and the unit value of each rises. A combination of these two causes may also occur.

In both cases the total amount of social labour-time expands, but in the first, there is no change in unit values, whereas, in the second, unit values rise.

What is the consequence of this in relation to money and prices. Money is the equivalent form of value. It is another way of expressing the total value of commodities, indirectly, or put another way is the monetary expression of total social labour-time. Because the total value of commodities rises, i.e. total social labour-time rises, the total value of money also rises. But, money, initially takes the form, itself, of a commodity, for example, cattle, and later gold. It is as a quantity of this money commodity that the values of all other commodities are expressed as prices, for example, the value of 100 litres of wine may be expressed as equal to one head of cattle. Price is just the same as exchange-value, but exchange-value in relation to a specific money commodity. If 100 litres of wine has a value of 1,000 hours of labour, and one head of cattle has a value of 1,000 hours of labour, it is this equality of value that is expressed in their quantitative relation to each other.

If gold is the money commodity, this same 1,000 hours of labour may be equal to 1 gram of gold, and it is then this 1 gram of gold, which represents the money price of the 100 litres of wine. But, gold, like cattle or wine, is itself a commodity, and its own value changes, as social productivity changes. So, a change in social productivity that causes unit values of commodities, in general, to rise, may cause the value of gold, also, to rise.

Suppose the total value of commodities is equal to 1 million hours of labour, in which case, here, its equivalent, in money, is 1,000 grams of gold. If, 10,000 commodities are produced, the average unit value of each is 100 hours of labour, and the average price is equal to 0.10 grams of gold. If social productivity falls, so that these 10,000 commodities, now, require 1.1 million hours of labour to produce, total value rises. However, ceteris paribus, the value of gold would also rise, now, requiring 1,100 hours of labour to produce a gram. So, the relation between gold and other commodities would remain unchanged. The 10,000 commodities would still be represented by 1,000 grams of gold, and the average unit price of a commodity would remain 0.10 grams of gold. This is the simplest illustration that an increase in unit value is not the same thing as an increase in unit price.

However, if social productivity remains constant, and the total value of commodities/social labour-time rises, simply because more labour is employed, and more commodities are produced, the total value of money will also rise in proportion, but will, also, now be represented by an increased quantity of the money commodity. In other words, if 11,000 commodities are produced, with an average unit value of still 100 hours of labour, the total value of money also rises to 1.1 million hours of social labour-time, and is represented by 1,100 grams of gold. In that case, unit values and prices remain constant, whilst the total of prices and values rises to 1.1 million hours of labour, and 1,100 grams of gold respectively. If the 1 gram of gold is given the name £1, then the average unit price is £0.10, and the total of prices is £1,100.

But, as Marx sets out, in the above work, although this physical quantity of the money commodity, starts off as the basis of the standard of prices, over time, the name of the standard of prices remains the same, but what it comprises continually changes. A Pound might begin as being equal to 1 gram of gold, but, as seen above, if the value of gold changes, then the amount of social labour-time represented by a gram of gold changes along with it. The money commodity is the only commodity whose own value and changes in that value, affects the prices of all other commodities. So, when new gold discoveries occurred, which meant that the value of gold fell, the effect was to cause the prices of all other commodities to rise relative to it. Each gram of gold represented less social labour-time, and so, also, more gold currency had to be thrown into circulation.

Back To Part 1

Forward To Part 3