VALUE (In ethics)
[To be added...]
See also:
AXIOLOGY
VALUE (In political economy)
Social labor as materialized in the form of commodities. The
amount of value in a commodity is determined by the
socially necessary labor time incorporated
into it.
Any useful object produced by human beings
embodies their labor. And in any socioeconomic system there will be objects which are
valued by people for the uses they may have and the needs they may fulfil. But only in
economic systems which produce and exchange commodities (i.e., most notably
capitalism, but also pre-capitalist economies which produced
commodities even if only as a secondary feature, and also under
socialism (the transition period from capitalism to communism),
is there such a thing as the political-economic category of value. What is required for
labor to produce value (in this technical sense in Marxist political economy) is that the item
produced must first be a useful thing, but also that the actual ultimate user of the
item obtain it through exchange. For such exchange to take place there must be some
basis for the exchange, i.e., some valuation of the items exchanged. The only rational basis
for calculating the relative value of two items being exchanged is the differing amounts of
socially necessary labor time incorporated into each.
“Marx, taking Ricardo’s investigations as his
starting-point, says: The value of commodities is determined by the socially necessary general
human labor embodied in them, and this in turn is measured by its duration.” —Engels,
Anti-Dühring, Part II, Ch. V: (MECW 25:178). “A use-value, or useful article,
therefore, has value only because human labor in the abstract has been embodied or materialized
in it.” —Marx, Capital, vol. I, chapter I: (International, p. 38; Penguin, p. 129.)
“Value exists only in articles of utility, in objects.... If therefore an article loses its
utility, it also loses its value.” —Marx, Capital, vol. I, chapter VIII: (International,
p. 202; Penguin, p. 310.)
See also:
LABOR THEORY OF VALUE,
LAW OF VALUE,
USE-VALUE,
EXCHANGE-VALUE,
PRICE
VANGUARD VANGUARD ACTION VANGUARD PARTY VANGUARDISM VELOCITY OF CIRCULATION (OF MONEY) VENCEREMOS (Political Organization) VENCEREMOS BRIGADE VIENNA CIRCLE VILLAGE COMMUNE (Russia) “... the analysis provided in Capital does not adduce reasons either
for or against the viability of the rural commune [in Russia], but the special study I have
made of it, and the material for which I drew from original sources, has convinced me that this
commune is the fulcrum of social regeneration in Russia, but in order that it may function as
such, it would first be necessary to eliminate the deleterious influences which are assailing
it from all sides, and then ensure for it the normal conditions of spontaneous development.”
—Marx, Letter to Vera Zasulich, March 8, 1881, MECW 46:71-72. “The village commune in [Tsarist] Russia was a communal form of peasant
land tenure characterized by compulsory crop rotation and undivided woods and pastures. Its
principal features were collective liability (compulsory collective responsibility of the
peasants for making their payments in full and on time, and the performance of various services
to the state and the landowners), the regular reallotment of the land with no right to refuse
the allotment given, the prohibition of its purchase and sale. VILLAGE COMMUNE (Russia) — Collective Responsibility In VIOLENCE “Socialism is opposed to violence against nations. That is indisputable.
But socialism is opposed to violence against men in general. Apart from Christian anarchists
and Tolstoyans, however, no one has yet drawn the conclusion from this that socialism is
opposed to revolutionary violence. So, to talk about ‘violence’ in general, without
examining the conditions which distinguish reactionary from revolutionary violence, means
being a philistine who renounces revolution, or else it means simply deceiving oneself and
others by sophistry. See also: WAR. VIOLENT REVOLUTION “We are agreed on this: that the proletariat cannot conquer political power,
the only door to the new society, without violent revolution.” —Engels, Letter to Gerson
Trier, Dec. 18, 1889; Marx-Engels: Selected Correspondence (Moscow: Progress, 1975),
p. 386; in a slightly different translation in MECW 48:423. VISHWA HINDU PARISHAD VITALISM VOLOSHINOV, V. N. [Valentin Nikolaevich] (1895-1936) VOLTAIRE, François Marie Arouet de (1694-1778) VORWÄRTS [“Forward”] Dictionary Home Page and Letter Index
An advance force at the head of and leading a whole army or movement.
[To be added... ]
[To be added... ]
[To be added... ]
The velocity of money, or—spelled out more clearly—the velocity of the circulation
of money, is the speed at which money circulates in the economy, or in order words, the average
number of times a given amount of money changes hands during a given time period. Thus if the
money supply is $1 trillion, and the total amount of goods and services purchased in the
economy in one year is $10 trillion, then the velocity of circulation during that year is 10.
The velocity of circulation changes from time to time, and it used to be a closely watched
figure in the American economy. However, since the 1970s there are so many different types of
money (currency, checking accounts, savings accounts, money market accounts, easily convertable
investment funds, etc.) that it has become somewhat arbitrary to say precisely what the current
money supply is. Moreover, on any given definition of the money supply, that supply has become
highly erratic. Therefore monitoring changes in the velocity of circulation is no longer a very
useful way to keep an eye on the economy.
The Venceremos organization (not to be confused with the Venceremos
Brigade), was originally a small radical Chicano political group in the southern part of the
San Francisco Bay Area. In 1971 about a third of the Maoist organization, the
Revolutionary Union, which was then also mostly located in the Bay Area,
split off and joined Venceremos en masse. This greatly changed the character of the organization,
and turned it into a multinational group with a lot of white students and ex-students.
The leader of the faction that split from the RU
was H. Bruce Franklin, one of the RU’s founders and one of its three top leaders. According to
Franklin years later, the reason for the split was mostly that the RU back then was not a fully
multinational organization, partly because at that time it referred interested Black people to the
Black Panther Party instead. Actually, that was a very secondary issue,
which all the RU leadership was soon to agree to change, partly because of the degeneration of
the Black Panther Party itself. The real central dispute within the RU was over what basic
revolutionary strategy to adopt: 1) merging with the working class, and at the appropriate time
mass insurrection; or 2) urban guerrilla warfare led by ex-students and the
lumpenproletariat. The Franklin group favored the second
course, while the rest of the RU favored the first course. (For more on this, see:
REVOLUTIONARY UNION — 1970 Split.)
The very name “Venceremos”, Spanish for “We Will
Win”, derives from a battle cry of Che Guevarra. But the connection of
this Venceremos organization to Che was much deeper than that. They were in essence proposing an
urban guerrilla warfare version of his notorious
foco strategy. However, Venceremos was much more talk than action, and
it may not have actually undertaken any guerrilla actions. But it was consciously preparing to do
so, acquiring arms and expertise in their use, and it definitely expected that armed struggle
would not be long in coming. (This is a point that Franklin now seems to deny, according to the
Wikipedia.) But their actual activity seems to have been more around reformist issues such as
working for prison reform and defending war protesters.
It seems fair to say that Venceremos was less of
a Marxist group, and more of a student-based anarchist organization, which though known for its
wild rhetoric and AK-47 logo, soon fell apart and disappeared.
An organization that sends annual volunteer work brigades to Cuba as an act of political
solidarity, and for the purpose of further educating them (indoctrinating them?) in the political
outlook of the Castro government. (Not to be confused with the Venceremos organization above.)
An influential school of logical positivism founded by
Moritz Schlick in the 1920s. It was hostile to not only religion and
metaphysics (in the bourgeois sense), but also ethics and abstract
social principles of any kind. It took its inspiration primarily from physics. Among its adherents
were Rudolph Carnap and Otto Neurath. The reactionary philosopher Karl
Popper was strongly influenced by this school.
A limited and partial form of traditional rural collective ownership of land in tsarist Russia. Marx
had some hopes that this might form a “fulcrum” for the transformation of the Russian countryside
in a socialist direction. The Russian Narodniks took this beyond a hope and made it a programmatic
dogma. However, after Marx’s day, the further development of capitalism and capitalist relations of
production in Russia, including to some extent in the countryside, pretty much destroyed this
possibility. Both Plekhanov and Lenin viewed any program of socialist transformation based on the
rural village communes as essentially impossible.
“The Russian village commune dates back
to ancient times and in the course of historical development gradually became one of the
mainstays of feudalism in Russia. The landowners and the tsarist government used the village
commune to intensify feudal oppression and to squeeze redemption payment and taxes out of the
the people. Lenin pointed out that the village commune ‘does not save the peasant from turning
into a proletarian, yet in practice acts as a medieval barrier dividing the peasants, who are,
as it were, chained to small associations and to categories which have lost all “reason for
existence”’ [LCW 15:78].
“The problem of the village commune
aroused heated arguments and brought an extensive economic literature into existence.
Particularly great interest in the commune was displayed by the
Narodniks, who saw in it the guarantee of Russia’s socialist
evolution by a special path. By tendentiously selecting facts and falsifying them and employing
so-called ‘average figures’, the Narodniks sought to prove that the commune peasantry in Russia
possessed a special sort of ‘stability’, and that the peasant commune protected the peasants
against the penetration of capitalist relations into their lives, and saved them from ruin and
class differentiation. As early as the 1880s, G. V. Plekhanov had shown that the Narodnik
illusions about ‘commune socialism’ were unfounded, and in the 1890s Lenin completely refuted
the Narodnik theories. Lenin brought forward a tremendous amount of statistical material and
innumerable facts to show how capitalist relations were developing in the Russian village, and
how capital, by penetrating the patriarchal village commune, was splitting the peasantry into
two antagonistic classes, the kulaks and the poor peasants.
“In 1906 the tsarist Minister
Stolypin issued a law favoring the kulaks that allowed the peasants
to leave the commune and sell their allotments. This law laid the basis for the official
abolition of the village commune system and intensified the differentiation among the peasants.
In the nine years following the promulgation of the law, over two million peasant families
withdrew from the communes.” —Footnote 72, LCW 19:573-574.
The collective responsibility for the prompt and full payment of numerous services and obligations,
both to the state (in the form of taxes and the provision of recruits into the Tsarist army, etc.)
and the landlords (in the form of land redemption installments, etc.), was the compulsory obligation
of every member of the Russian peasant “village commune”. This form
of collective bondage remained in force even after serfdom was officially abolished in 1961, and up
until 1906 after the serious scare put into the ruling class by the 1905 Revolution.
[Intro material to be added... ]
“The same holds true of violence against
nations. Every war is violence against nations, but that does not prevent socialists from
being in favor of a revolutionary war. The class character of war—that is the
fundamental question which confronts a socialist (if he is not a renegade).” —Lenin,
“Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky” (Oct.-Nov. 1918), LCW 28:285.
See: HINDUTVA
[To be added... ]
A Russian Marxist linguist and psychologist, best known for his book Marxism and the Philosophy
of Language (1929; English translation 1973). He was a close associate of Mikhail Bakhtin and a
key member of a group of Marxist scholars around Bakhtin in the late 1920s and early 1930s.
Voloshinov’s linguistic theories derive primarily from Wilhelm von Humbolt, Ferdinand de Saussure,
and his Russian contemporary Nikolai Marr. Voloshinov, however, criticized Saussure’s synchronic
(unhistorical) form of structuralism, and instead emphasized the
dialectical changes in language over time. He argued that different social classes give many words
and phrases quite different meanings, and that there is a continual struggle around this within
the superstructure of society. He was also an early proponent of the idea that words derive their
meaning from their various contexts. However, in his formulations and thinking—as with that of
Bakhtin and the rest of his circle—there does seem to be certain tendencies toward philosophical
idealism, or at least modes of expression suggesting such. However, probably unjustly, there were
government arrests of some members of Bakhtin’s circle in 1929, which brought the meetings of that
circle to an end. Voloshinov himself worked at the Herzen Pedagogical Institute in Leningrad until
1934 when he came down with tuberculosis. He died two years later in a sanitorium.
[To be added...]
See also
Philosophical Doggerel on Voltaire.
A daily newspaper and central organ of Germany Social-Democracy. Wilhelm Liebknecht, a follower of
Marx, was one of its editors when it first began publication in 1876. Engels struggled against all
forms of opportunism in his writings for Vorwärts. But in the late 19th century, after
Engels’ death, many opportunist and revisionist articles were routinely published, reflecting the
views then dominant in the SPD and the Second International. In reporting about the struggles
within the Russian revolutionary movement, Vorwärts sided with the Economists
and then the Mensheviks, and did not give Lenin and his followers any opportunity to reply. During
World War I the newspaper took a social-chauvinist stand, supporting the German ruling class in
the war. After the October Revolution, it carried on extensive anti-Soviet propaganda. It was
suppressed by the Nazis in 1933.