In the Soviet period, Strumilin held various high positions in the State Planning Board Gosplan (deputy chairman several times, chairman of the economic-statistical section during the 1920s) and in the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1931 full membership and doctor of economics honoris causa). For decades he also worked as a professor.

Strumilin published on economic planning, the economics of labor, industrial statistics, and economic history, and he took sides in all important economic debates. He combined theoretical argumentation with empirical statistics and also incorporated sociological perspectives (e.g., in his pioneering time-budget studies). During the politicized economic debates of the 1920s, he was a radical advocate of a planned economy and responsible for the drawing up of the First Five-Year-Plan. He opted for the teleological method of planning, which takes the final (production) targets as a starting point. His demographic works, among them a prediction regarding the number and age – sex composition of the population of Russia for 1921 – 1941, were influential in the Soviet Union and gained international attention.

Strumilin managed to survive the purges of the Josef Stalin period and benefited from the rehabilitation of the economists after World War II. He then concentrated on labor issues and the impact of education on wage differentials, participated actively in the economic debates of the 1950s and 1960s, and published until 1973. He represented the first generation of Soviet Marxist economists.

We will begin with a question which will carry us straight
to the main point: in what way did Marx arrive at the fundamental
proposition of his teaching–the proposition that all
value depends solely upon incorporated quantities of labor?
That this proposition is not a self-evident axiom, needing no
proof, is beyond doubt. Value and effort, as I have stated at
length in another place, are not ideas so intimately connected
that one is forced immediately to adopt the view that effort is
the basis of value. “That I have toiled over a thing is one fact,
that the thing is worth the toil is another and a different fact,
and that the two facts do not always go hand in hand is far too
firmly established by experience to admit of any doubt. It is
proved by all the labor which is daily wasted on valueless
results, owing either to want of technical skill, or to bad speculation,
or to simple misfortune; and not less by each of the
numerous cases in which a very little toil has a result of very
great value.”

they are informed by Marx labor theory of value

and the work done on something that doesn’t work, is equal to the work done on something that does work!

value of the outcome is not determined by its merit, but by the amount of labor, as if labor had a conversion value like a BTU, and as if no one can waste labor on fruitless ends.

in this way, real reasearch
busy work… sitting at a desk to be paid
real work… taking a dump on the toilet.

ALL have work labor value…

In this way, no one cares what they output of ones work is! there is no way to be wrong, or not have the world valued!!!

i keep saying it makes sense if you read and learn what cult bizarro view they have been handed

the book is free…

of course… it pretty much a given that if they don’t read it, they can keep inputting and sounding original.

anyone notice that i bring up names and people and such and almost everyone doesn’t know them?

they should be known as they are foundational to how we live today… (or why we live this way since their works have been erased)

S. G. Strumilin was one of STALINS economists…

Wondering why young people spout Marxist claptrap? Look no further than the universities
http://www.brookesnews.com/092112socialism.html

So where do young people get this socialist drivel from? Unfortunately much of it comes from our universities. This brings to mind Frank Stilwell, a socialist professor of economics at the University of Sydney and another example of the left’s total inability to learn from history, particularly economic history. In Why bother about economic inequality (OnlineOpinion, 15 July 2002) he slagged, the name of equality, “economic rationalism, economic fundamentalism and neoliberalism”, leftwing codenames for free market economics.

Real wages are basically determined by the ratio of labour to the capital structure, not by posturing politicians, bullying unioncrats and their Marxist allies in academia – and certainly not by the “customs of society”. Therefore, as a country expands its capital structure, adding to it more and more complex stages of production embodying new technology, it raises living standards. Moreover, as Stillwell knows, or should, marginal productivity theory explains why there is a tendency in the free market for workers to receive the full value of their labor, which in turn is paid by consumers and not employers.

One of the roles of a businessman is to act as an intermediary between consumers and the factors of production. This renders absurd Stillwell’s claim that companies should keep up wages to avert poverty. Any attempt to raise wages above market rates will raise unemployment. The obverse is that any attempt to keep wages below market rates will cause labor shortages.

What really nails Stillwell is the fact that the “distributional hierarchy” is a socialist myth. Most incomes, as I have already pointed out, are not distributed, but earned (with the exception, perhaps, of some academics). Marxist attempts to demonstrate that labour was exploited by having part of its income (surplus value) confiscated by capitalists were completely demolished by the “marginalist revolution,” and especially by the brilliant work of Eugen von Bé¶hm-Bawerk (Capital and Interest, three volumes,1884 – 1912).

Stillwell is too shrewd a propagandist to directly use Marx’s discredited exploitation theory of labor to attack free labor markets, so what he could not achieve by open debate he hoped to gain by stealth. Hence his insinuation that there is something unjust about market income disparities even though market participants tend to be paid in accordance with the value of their work.

This enabled him to confidently assert that a deregulated labor market “could certainly swell the ranks of those classified as living in poverty” despite the fact that the greatest cause of poverty in Australia was the unemployment that his beloved unions and arbitration commission created. But then again, Marxists are not generally noted for heeding inconvenient facts.

(In his brilliant seminar at the University of Vienna in the 1890s Bé¶hm-Bawerk utterly demolished Marx’s economics. Bé¶hm-Bawerk’s analysis was published in English in 1898 under the title Karl Marx and the Close of His System)

sigh

at this point we can conclude that what makes the present recession drastically different from all the post-war downturns is a Democratic Party that is now so statist one is entitled to call it socialist. (I would say it is socialist in a neo-fascist sense2). For these people there really is no such thing as economics. They seem to have wholeheartedly adopted the view (along with the vicious tactics of the hateful Saul Alinsky) of S. G. Strumilin, a Marxist economist, who once declared: “Our task is not to study economics but to change it. We are bound by no laws”. (Cited in Robert Coquest’s Harvest of Sorrow, Pimlico, 2002, p. 112.) It is a belief that any fascist would enthusiastically endorse.

If the Democrats insist on clinging to their statist (neo-fascist) approach to economics I don’t see much hope for the US economy. GDP might continue to grow or even accelerate somewhat but under these conditions I cannot see a sustained process of economic growth emerging. http://brookesnews.com/100305fascisteconomics.html

They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty.

They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship.

They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent.

They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office.

Every man but a subordinate clerk in a bureau. What an alluring utopia! What a noble cause to fight!

Against all this frenzy of agitation there is but one weapon available: reason.

Just common sense is needed to prevent man from falling prey to illusory fantasies and empty catchwords.”
Ludwig Von Mises

Just read that the Phoenix Suns will be wearing its “Los Suns” jerseys for Wednesday night’s Game 2 against the San Antonio Spurs to honor the Latino community and protest the Arizona immigration bill.

The Spurs should wear jerseys with “INS” on them. Probably be a huge hit back in Texas.

Or (likely) did the Suns’ management put them up to it? — can’t offend potential customers and all that.

A real interesting turn would be to replace the roster of the Phoenix Suns entirely with Mexicans. Let’s see how that squares with Al Sharpton and the NBA players assocaition. See how the hollow, bullshit move of “Los Suns” goes over. We would also want Angels outfielder Torii Hunter’s (who is black) take on the situation, he who recently branded Hispanic players as “impostors”

See how much love for the Mexican brothers we got then.