[Zhukov]

All I'm saying is to take into account that there is much sociology involved in the stock market and the economic trends of a given country as there is knowledge of finance and mathematics and that the characteristics of a "free market society" more closely follow human nature. I'm not saying this as an absolute but just generally speaking. The "feudal ages" are much closer to a free market society than either communism or socialism. He who has the army and resources wins. That being so, these winners surely must have been under God's grace ... or so they believed.

Humans lived for thousands and thousands of years in communes. There is no all powerful human nature that dictates what people do or how they live. You can argue that there is human nature depending on the environment and social system, but there is no ' basichuman nature' that flows through all of us.

The problem isn't in the theory but with the bureacratic machine that is sure to follow and become corrupt. Of course, the same can be said of most forms of government.

No it is not sure to follow, can you telll me why it is sure to follow?

In general, I meant.

In general people are 'nice' where I live, in general people are 'mean' where you live. Maybe it has nothing to do with human nature at all?

I'm saying that government's like communism are, when combined with a heavy nationalistic bent, more susceptible to dictactorship. Control the resources and media and you make mass brainwash an easy option especially when the general public is isolated from outside influence.

The revolution wasn't built on nationalism.

German Worker's Party was initially socialist. Hitler was a member of that party when he made chancellor.

Come to think of it, I am not sure if they were Socialist or not, but Hitlers rise is only connected to a 'communist dictatorship' becasue of Stalins help in his rise. (through pitting the various Socialists against each other, when they should have joined)

Therefore, the theory is wrong. The theory, as written, applies to all form so labour. Any one example that goes against a theory proves it wrong. I don't know what LTV your thinking of, but the one I see clearly has no exceptions.

No, the theory, as written, applies to advanced Capitalist modes of production. Many people say that “Marx’s theory of value is out of date” by which one can presume is meant “value is no longer determined by the quantity of labour-time required for its production”, for Marx only claimed to describe the dynamics of social relations of the bourgeois society of his day, not to have constructed an eternal scientific theory. Is labour-time now irrelevant to value determination? Have things changed? What has changed is the nature of human needs, which in this 'postmodern' world, are very different from what those of the world in which life hinged more around food, warmth and security than brand and image. Oh, regarding the deer, it is not the difference between individual 'economic actors' (this is how von misses refers to people) killing deer. You and I may take different amounts of time to kill a deer, but Marx was clear in that he was looking at the socially necessary amount of labour time - a big social average. Marx is looking at society as a whole, whereas others look at individual differences.

This is the LTV I am thinking of, which one did you read?

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Are you claiming that if a great reserve of diamonds was found, then worker's wages would do down? That is, after all, the price of labour.

Actualy, if you look closely, you will notice that I just switched around the words from your original sentence - I didn't mean anything other than 'I wont accept your points, you wont accept mine.'

What basis do you have for your theory, anyway? What makes you accept it?

What I understand seem right. Although I have trouble understanding alot of it. If you havent already noticed, I am not the goldstandard marxist economist.