A question for our Marxists - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15171179
Unthinking Majority wrote:If you want to change society the burden is on you to show that what you support is going to be better than what you want to replace. If it's emergent and organic then we don't even have to worry about any of this and let organic pressures take its course.


Not necessarily.

A slave has no obligation to make the slaveowner understand why or how the slaveowner will be better off before revolting against the slaveowner.

In fact, life might not be better for the slaveowner at all.

Also, socialism is as organic as capitalism.

Sorry but the particulars matter, because sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease.


People do not seem to hold capitalism to that standard.
#15171183
Unthinking Majority wrote:
If you want to change society the burden is on you to show that what you support is going to be better than what you want to replace.



Okay, yeah, I'll have that Powerpoint presentation ready to go in Conference Room G tomorrow at 9:00 am sharp.

This topic of 'changing society' isn't meant to fit the context of run-it-up-the-flagpole-and-see-who-salutes, it's meant to tear down the nationalist militaristic flagpole altogether.

Anything in the leftward direction of '[social] *equality*' is the correct, appropriate political direction to go in, because society does not objectively *require* -- nor should it *practice* -- any kind of formal *hierarchy* for its civil society.

I recently posted a good treatment on this topic to the 'Identity Politics' thread:


ckaihatsu wrote:
[I'd] like to note that a *sounder* approach to equality would be an ever-widening *scope* of socio-political terrain devoted to the intentional implementation and practice of social equality.

Starting with the aforementioned (legal) formal equality of the 'liberal republic', one can ask why isn't there also legal equality regarding access to early childhood education, and equality in access to food provisioning, and also for housing, and jobs, and then control of the workplace and industrial mass production for humane need -- ?



3-Dimensional Axes of Social Reality

Spoiler: show
Image



Also, I think that truly independent individualism, in the self-determination / Wilde sense, should be a civilizational goal, but on *that* left-right political spectrum we still have to deal with the prevailing bourgeois-nationalist status-quo in the here-and-now:


G.U.T.S.U.C., Individualism - Tribalism

Spoiler: show
Image




Socialism, Communism, or whatever one chooses to call it, by converting private property into public wealth, and substituting co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and insure the material well-being of each member of the community. It will, in fact, give Life its proper basis and its proper environment. But for the full development of Life to its highest mode of perfection, something more is needed. What is needed is Individualism. If the Socialism is Authoritarian; if there are Governments armed with economic power as they are now with political power; if, in a word, we are to have Industrial Tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worse than the first. At present, in consequence of the existence of private property, a great many people are enabled to develop a certain very limited amount of Individualism. They are either under no necessity to work for their living, or are enabled to choose the sphere of activity that is really congenial to them, and gives them pleasure. These are the poets, the philosophers, the men of science, the men of culture – in a word, the real men, the men who have realised themselves, and in whom all Humanity gains a partial realisation. Upon the other hand, there are a great many people who, having no private property of their own, and being always on the brink of sheer starvation, are compelled to do the work of beasts of burden, to do work that is quite uncongenial to them, and to which they are forced by the peremptory, unreasonable, degrading Tyranny of want. These are the poor, and amongst them there is no grace of manner, or charm of speech, or civilisation, or culture, or refinement in pleasures, or joy of life. From their collective force Humanity gains much in material prosperity. But it is only the material result that it gains, and the man who is poor is in himself absolutely of no importance. He is merely the infinitesimal atom of a force that, so far from regarding him, crushes him: indeed, prefers him crushed, as in that case he is far more obedient.



https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/



---


Unthinking Majority wrote:
If it's emergent and organic then we don't even have to worry about any of this and let organic pressures take its course.



Is there anything 'organic' about *fascism* -- ?


Colombia begs for help as Duque embarks on indescribable terror campaign

https://colombiareports.com/colombia-be ... -campaign/


Unthinking Majority wrote:
Sorry but the particulars matter, because sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease.



Sure, I can appreciate this kind of 'planning' mentality, since I do *share* it, in general, but there's also the dynamic of 'analysis paralysis', meaning that a lack of engagement with real-world events in realtime consigns one to the library / monasticism, by default.
#15171213
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not necessarily.

A slave has no obligation to make the slaveowner understand why or how the slaveowner will be better off before revolting against the slaveowner.

In fact, life might not be better for the slaveowner at all.

I'm not worried about the slaveowners, I'm worried about the slaves. The slaves that want a revolt have an obligation to all the other slaves to make sure the revolt has a realistic chance of resulting in an outcome better than the status quo and that a bunch of them don't end up dead or suffering even worse than the status quo.
#15171219
ckaihatsu wrote:Market pricing of the resulting finished commodity -- good and/or service -- takes place *after* the production (process) of the commodity in the first place.

The prerequisite production of the commodity requires inputs of capital and labor, under capitalism, and if the labor power provided by workers is not proportionately compensated-for, by wages -- which it *isn't* -- then that means that laborers are being *exploited* for every hour that they work, as outlined in the 'Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends' diagram.


Not always, for instance in plenty of industries the productive process takes several months or years and workers get paid at least monthly regardless of that. It's an irrelevant argument, and doesn't really get to Roemer's point at all.
#15171298
Unthinking Majority wrote:I'm not worried about the slaveowners, I'm worried about the slaves. The slaves that want a revolt have an obligation to all the other slaves to make sure the revolt has a realistic chance of resulting in an outcome better than the status quo and that a bunch of them don't end up dead or suffering even worse than the status quo.


This sounds like moralising.

In practical reality, Marxist revolutions or movements have no chance of succeeding without widespread support. Even with widespread support, the chances are iffy.

So this idea that a minority will impose it on everyone else is ahistorical and does not merit debate.
#15171321
wat0n wrote:
Not always, for instance in plenty of industries the productive process takes several months or years and workers get paid at least monthly regardless of that. It's an irrelevant argument, and doesn't really get to Roemer's point at all.



Nice attempted dodge, but you're obviously trying to sidestep / ignore the empirical fact that the commodity production process inherently / necessarily imposes a *sequence*, regarding time.

All the capitalist economic theory in the world only addresses the commodity in terms of subsequent *market pricing*, and not in terms of what it took, materially, to *produce* that commodity -- to bring it into existence -- in the first place, namely equity capital and exploited labor value.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



What *you're* describing is basically a *management* concern, over returns on investment, and the *scheduling* around such. But for those who *have no* capital, the workers, they're selling their labor power, under duress, for the sake of a wage, for the sake of procuring the necessities of modern life and living.

Do you want government to *support* you while you're making speculative investments in a new industry, like the dotcoms of 20 years ago that stubbornly didn't turn a profit for years on end? Okay, you *got* it -- it's called *tax breaks* from the government, so stop *whining*, please.
#15171322
ckaihatsu wrote:Nice attempted dodge, but you're obviously trying to sidestep / ignore the empirical fact that the commodity production process inherently / necessarily imposes a *sequence*, regarding time.

All the capitalist economic theory in the world only addresses the commodity in terms of subsequent *market pricing*, and not in terms of what it took, materially, to *produce* that commodity -- to bring it into existence -- in the first place, namely equity capital and exploited labor value.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



What *you're* describing is basically a *management* concern, over returns on investment, and the *scheduling* around such. But for those who *have no* capital, the workers, they're selling their labor power, under duress, for the sake of a wage, for the sake of procuring the necessities of modern life and living.

Do you want government to *support* you while you're making speculative investments in a new industry, like the dotcoms of 20 years ago that stubbornly didn't turn a profit for years on end? Okay, you *got* it -- it's called *tax breaks* from the government, so stop *whining*, please.


It's not a dodge to point out that long term contracts exist that allow workers to be paid before they have finished producing anything. That happens all the time. Again, it's an irrelevant concern.

If that's your grounds to dismiss criticism of orthodox Marxian economic theory, even when coming from other Marxists, then yes you do sound more like a religious fundamentalist than anything else.
#15171323
wat0n wrote:
It's not a dodge to point out that long term contracts exist that allow workers to be paid before they have finished producing anything. That happens all the time. Again, it's an irrelevant concern.

If that's your grounds to dismiss criticism of orthodox Marxian economic theory, even when coming from other Marxists, then yes you do sound more like a religious fundamentalist than anything else.



What you don't seem to be understanding is that the workers, in this equation, are not at home watching TV and collecting a paycheck -- if they're at the workplace then they need to be paid for their time, and any incompetence on the part of personnel management, in the interests of ownership, has no bearing on the workers themselves. One can simply ask why the workers were hired in the first place.

So, my Marxist "religious fundamentalism" aside, why is the boss making such bad investment decisions, or why is the production schedule so fucked-up that workers are being idled?

This may just be the coffee talking, but you have the *most sophisticated* ways of *whining* I've ever seen. I think Guiness may be calling you soon....
#15171326
No one said workers are watching TV while sitting on their couch waiting to collect paychecks.

Seriously, have you ever worked for a project where you can take several months to produce any final goods or services at all?
#15171327
wat0n wrote:
No one said workers are watching TV while sitting on their couch waiting to collect paychecks.

Seriously, have you ever worked for a project where you can take several months to produce any final goods or services at all?



No, wait -- bro. Seriously, though. Bro.

Why are you *couching* (heh) this as being some sort of concern for *workers* when they simply need to be paid for their time -- ?

Are they given any *stock* or *shares* in the company? Then why should they give a fuck, over *managerial* concerns?

POD is right about you and UM -- all you have left is *moralizing*.
#15171329
ckaihatsu wrote:No, wait -- bro. Seriously, though. Bro.

Why are you *couching* (heh) this as being some sort of concern for *workers* when they simply need to be paid for their time -- ?

Are they given any *stock* or *shares* in the company? Then why should they give a fuck, over *managerial* concerns?

POD is right about you and UM -- all you have left is *moralizing*.


I'm not moralizing, I'm showing your concern about timing is irrelevant in practice as it's dealt with through signing an employment contract that sets pay frequency. Your example is anachronistic as it was perhaps the norm in the 19th century. Do you have anything else to add? Are Okishio's Theorem or Roemer's claim about morality or about modeling?
#15171332
wat0n wrote:
I'm not moralizing, I'm showing your concern about timing is irrelevant in practice as it's dealt with through signing an employment contract that sets pay frequency. Your example is anachronistic as it was perhaps the norm in the 19th century. Do you have anything else to add? Are Okishio's Theorem or Roemer's claim about morality or about modeling?



Are you some kind of AI who's just been let loose into the realm of politics, as a 'beta' test?

Instead of flitting around from point to point, why don't you just *admit* that you have nothing to say about workers interests, and that you've already implicitly conceded the point -- ?

I already cited the example of the dotcom era, where workers had to be paid, hourly, regardless of early-Amazon's profitability, or not.

If you have anything to say about Okishio or Roemer you're going to have to say it *yourself*.
#15171335
wat0n wrote:
If you acknowledge workers will get paid regardless, then what's your issue with Roemer's claims?

Both his and Okishio's are about modeling and not morality or "workers' interests".



I already addressed these:


ckaihatsu wrote:
Roemer, according to the Wikipedia entry, is a hack, trying to *obfuscate* the labor theory of value by making a chicken-or-the-egg type of argument regarding 'First Cause' -- ignoring that labor is a *recurring* input at every step of capitalist commodity production, even over complex supply chains, over time.



viewtopic.php?p=15171096#p15171096



ckaihatsu wrote:
As I implied, [Okishio's Theorem] it's *propaganda* -- it's capitalist *triumphalism*, because it's so one-sided and doesn't include the dynamic of capitalist *overproduction* and the declining rate of profit.



viewtopic.php?p=15171071#p15171071
#15171347
wat0n wrote:
Why is Okishio's Theorem propaganda (except for denying Marx's original claim) and why is Roemer wrong?



Did I *stutter* -- ?


ckaihatsu wrote:
[Okishio's Theorem is propaganda because] it's so one-sided and doesn't include the dynamic of capitalist *overproduction* and the declining rate of profit.



ckaihatsu wrote:
[Roemer ignores] that labor is a *recurring* input at every step of capitalist commodity production, even over complex supply chains, over time.
#15171349
Why is Okishio's Theorem one-sided and why doesn't it include the alleged dynamic of capitalist overproduction? Overproduction with respect to what, exactly, when there is technical innovation?

What does your argument have to do with Roemer's claim that labor value is unnecessary for determining prices but not the other way around?
#15171368
wat0n wrote:
Why is Okishio's Theorem one-sided and why doesn't it include the alleged dynamic of capitalist overproduction? Overproduction with respect to what, exactly, when there is technical innovation?

What does your argument have to do with Roemer's claim that labor value is unnecessary for determining prices but not the other way around?



(You may want to offer a complimentary monetary inducement at this point.) (grin)



In economics, overproduction, oversupply, excess of supply or glut refers to excess of supply over demand of products being offered to the market. This leads to lower prices and/or unsold goods along with the possibility of unemployment.



Karl Marx outlined the inherent tendency of capitalism towards overproduction in his seminal work, Das Kapital.

According to Marx, in capitalism, improvements in technology and rising levels of productivity increase the amount of material wealth (or use values) in society while simultaneously diminishing the economic value of this wealth, thereby lowering the rate of profit—a tendency that leads to the paradox, characteristic of crises in capitalism, of "reserve army of labour" and of “poverty in the midst of plenty”, or more precisely, crises of overproduction in the midst of underconsumption.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overproduction



I don't dispute that the realm of exchange values for (commodities) market pricing has a life of its own, since that realm of values ultimately *floats* and cannot be dissected into any clear list of component input values.

In other words no one can say what the snapshot value of one dollar (or whatever) really represents, because of the given mix of commodity market pricing (for a good and/or service), *combined with* that value *floating* from day-to-day, representing the *second* variable of relative supply-and-demand for that particular commodity.

Thus the price quantity is doing *double duty*, representing two different economic measurements / variables, at the same time, which is just untenable and inherently obfuscating of initial material value inputs.

On the flipside, yes, of course input labor valuations -- wages -- have clear market pricing values, meaning dollars-per-hour for any given work role.

The aspect of economics that's usually glossed-over / ignored in typical discussions on (market) pricing of the finished commodity, is the *cost of production*, meaning the combined valuations of labor wages, plus equity capital.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



The finished commodity, for sale, is given a pricing *markup*, relative to the *cost* -- depreciated equity capital, plus raw resources, plus wage-labor -- that was required for its production.

Yet this 'surplus labor value' -- the markup amount, roughly -- is *not* returned to labor in proportion to labor's labor-value input that produced the commodity in the first place.

This is the definition of *exploitation*, and it's *not* a religious claim, but instead is an economically delineated one -- see the diagram.
#15171371
ckaihatsu wrote:I don't dispute that the realm of exchange values for (commodities) market pricing has a life of its own, since that realm of values ultimately *floats* and cannot be dissected into any clear list of component input values.

In other words no one can say what the snapshot value of one dollar (or whatever) really represents, because of the given mix of commodity market pricing (for a good and/or service), *combined with* that value *floating* from day-to-day, representing the *second* variable of relative supply-and-demand for that particular commodity.

Thus the price quantity is doing *double duty*, representing two different economic measurements / variables, at the same time, which is just untenable and inherently obfuscating of initial material value inputs.

On the flipside, yes, of course input labor valuations -- wages -- have clear market pricing values, meaning dollars-per-hour for any given work role.

The aspect of economics that's usually glossed-over / ignored in typical discussions on (market) pricing of the finished commodity, is the *cost of production*, meaning the combined valuations of labor wages, plus equity capital.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image


What makes you believe the last part is actually the case? I think everyone, even Marxian economists, would agree with the idea that, if a business is unprofitable permanently, it will eventually close.

But more importantly, even if commodity prices constantly fell (which I'll assume is adjusted by general inflation), why is that a bad thing if it's driven not by overproduction (in the sense you cited) but because technical innovation cuts unit costs?

ckaihatsu wrote:The finished commodity, for sale, is given a pricing *markup*, relative to the *cost* -- depreciated equity capital, plus raw resources, plus wage-labor -- that was required for its production.

Yet this 'surplus labor value' -- the markup amount, roughly -- is *not* returned to labor in proportion to labor's labor-value input that produced the commodity in the first place.

This is the definition of *exploitation*, and it's *not* a religious claim, but instead is an economically delineated one -- see the diagram.


Another thing Roemer claims is that exploitation could be defined with respect to any commodity. It's not something particular to labor.
#15171383
@wat0n
Thought I'd point you in the direction of some material if its what you're after in terms of something specific.
https://libcom.org/library/okisho-theorem-obituary-marxist-humanism
My general impression although I by no means have investigated it for myself as I haven't found the time to make a proper excursion into the issue is that Okishio's Theorem is criticized on the basis of in making the input-output prices equal but not necessarily justifying it as apparently there can be quite the divergence not properly accounted for in treating physical input-output coefficients alone determining the uniform rate of profit. The idea is that it happens that when input and output prices happen to be equal, physical input-output coefficients are sufficient. But when it comes to explaining this equality of input-output prices, one is left with a premise that is unexplained and doesn't actually fit with Marx's value theory.

I however don't know how the TSSIcritique of simultaneism and physicalism necessarily apply to Okishio.


In regards to Roemer, who I am not familiar with as I don't engage with the Analyitical Marxist tradition, I do wonder about the claims that exploitation can be applied in regards to any commodity. My brief impression from the following paper: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=econ_workingpaper&fbclid=IwAR2RuTdskZ_zIsSQNV0Wtg_G6EXnXApkH74XxT7DowwUzsE5OvzthT1ST24, is whether they confuse labor and the commodity of labour-power.
Spoiler: show
The implication of the first claim is that there is nothing special in labour so far as it can be considered the substance of value. Basic commodities can as well function as a substance of value. Hence, just like we have the labour theory of value, we can also have a peanut theory of value if only we agree that peanuts are basic commodities (Gintis and Bowles, 1981, Appendix I). The implication of the second claim is even more striking. Just as labour is understood to be exploited by capital when we use a Marxian LTV, it can be equally well demonstrated that when a basic commodity is chosen as the candidate substance of value, that basic commodity is also necessarily exploited in a capitalist economy if we use a CTV (Gintis and Bowles, 1981; Roemer, 1982). Hence, labour does not have a special function to play even in a theory of exploitation (Roemer, 1982, 1985).1
...
I argue that even if the notion of commodity value, as defined in Gintis and Bowles (1981) and Roemer (1982, appendix 6.1), is legitimate as a technical construct, it cannot be used to show that commodities are exploited. Trying to use the technical concept of commodity value to advance claims about the exploitation of commodities is conceptually flawed because such an attempt commits a category error. It attaches the surplus value generated by labour-power to a commodity like food or steel, when, in fact, such accounting cannot be justified on the basis of any logic.

I highlight the category error in AM thinking by juxtaposing two different intuitions about value. One intuition of value is what might be called an ‘embodied substance of value’ intuition. Using this intuition, we understand that the value of any commodity is equal to the amount of the substance of value embodied in a unit of the commodity. A second intuition of value is what might be called the ‘value transferred and value added’ intuition. If we use this intuition, we can assert that the value of any commodity is equal to the value transferred by, and the value added by, the production inputs. In the case of the LTV, both intuitions line up; in the case of CTV, the intuitions diverge. We can only make them coincide, I argue in this paper, by committing a category error, as do scholars who try to establish that commodities can be exploited. Both Gintis and Bowles (1981) and Roemer (1982, Appendix 6.1) had worked with the first intuition of value. They had not checked whether their formulation was in line with the second intuition. That might be one reason why the category error was hidden from view in these contributions.
...
When the finding that the food (steel) value of food (steel) is less than 1 is used to conclude that food (steel) is exploited, it is then that a conceptual error creeps into the argument. This is because the food (steel) value of food (steel) being less than 1 rests on positive exploitation of labour, i.e. on the fact that the food (steel) value added by labour-power is greater than the food (steel) value of labour-power. Only by an accounting trick is the surplus value generated by the use of labour-power added to the food (steel) value transferred by food (steel). Thus, even when the food (steel) value of food (steel) is less than 1, it is still labour that is exploited. Food (steel) is not exploited.

The source of this conceptual problem, as I see it, is associated with the attempt to treat labour-power symmetrically with all other commodities, i.e. to fail to distinguish between labour-power and all other commodities. Labour-power is the capacity to do useful work; labour is the outcome when that capacity is used. As a qualitative matter, no such distinction can exist for any other commodity, including food (steel). It is meaningless to try to define ‘food-power’ (‘steel-power’) as distinct from food (steel). This is because the capacity of food (steel) to be used is not distinct from the commodity food (steel) itself. Food, or any other commodity, does not have the will, consciousness or incentive to resist its use in whatsoever way its possessor wants. In the case of labour-power that is not the case. The possessor of labour-power, the worker, can and does, resist the way her employer, the capitalist, uses her labouring capacity. Hence, while it is meaningful to distinguish labour-power (the labouring capacity) from labour, it is meaningless to do so for any other commodity. And only because it is meaningful to distinguish between labour-power and labour, does it make sense to claim that there can be a difference between the value of labour-power and the value added by the use of labour-power. In the case of any commodity other than labour-power, such a claim cannot be sustained.

Gintis and Bowles (1981, pp. 7) would not agree with this argument because for them it is meaningful to define something called ‘lathe-power’ of the commodity lathe.

But clearly every commodity has an abstract form as a commodity and a concrete form as a physical entity engaged in production. A lathe can be considered a union of lathe-power, its abstract potential to perform useful functions, and as lathing, the concrete activity of the lathe engaged in production. (Gintis and Bowles, 1981, pp. 7).

As a logical and philosophical statement, the above assertion might be correct. But in terms of political economy and social analysis, the difference between lathe-power and lathe only makes sense if by purchasing the former, i.e. lathepower, the capitalist does not automatically get the latter, lathing. But that is clearly impossible unless we are ready to impute consciousness and will to the lathe.
The point to note is that there is a fundamental difference between lathepower and labour-power. The difference relates to the latter being a capacity of a human being and the former being the abstract capacity of an inanimate object. The difference between a human being and an inanimate object comes from the will and consciousness possessed by the former, which is absent in the latter. Hence the attempt to use lathe-power in a parallel way to the concept of labour-power does not stand scrutiny

From a quantitative angle, when we worked with the LTV we had used the fact that labour, the input in production, has no value, but labour-power, the commodity purchased by the capitalist, does have value, and moreover that, the value added by labour was greater than the value of labour-power. To repeat this logic in the case of food (steel), we would have to say that food (steel), as an input in production, has no food (steel) value, but food (steel), as the commodity purchased by the capitalist, does have food (steel) value. Furthermore, we would have to assert that each unit of food (steel), used as an input in production, adds more food (steel) value than the food (steel) value of each unit of food (steel) that was purchased by the capitalist. Clearly, these are absurd propositions - because we are talking about the same entity, food (steel), in both cases. No wonder then that the whole attempt to claim that commodities can be exploited leads to conceptual conundrums.
...
A strand of Marxist thinking, which I will call Analytical Marxist for lack of a better term, developed a whole set of arguments in the 1970s and 1980s that was interpreted as raising serious doubts on the labour theory of value. One argument in this broader class of Analytical Marxist thinking advanced two claims, first, that any basic commodity can be used to construct a consistent theory of value, and second, that such a value theory will show that, in a capitalist economy, the basic commodity (which is the substance of value) is exploited (Gintis and Bowles, 1981; Roemer, 1982).

In this paper, I have argued that both claims are based on elementary conceptual flaws, and once those flaws are dealt with, the theory collapses. The conceptual flaws are: (a) the failure to distinguish labour and labourpower (which underpins the first claim); and (b) the inability to distinguish between the commodity labour-power and all other commodities (which underpins the second claim).

My argument is two fold. First, once we distinguish between labour-power and labour, it is no longer possible to demonstrate that there are basics other than labour in the sense defined by Gintis and Bowles (1981). Hence, the claim that we can construct a theory of value on the basis of some basic other than labour is no longer valid. Second, once we distinguish between labourpower (the human capacity to do useful work) and all other commodities, it is no longer possible to claim that surplus value can be generated by commodities other than labour-power. Hence, the claim that commodities are exploited becomes invalid. One way to avoid these conceptual errors is to use the Marxian labour theory of value.

My impression of analytical Marxism is that it basically holds a methodologically approach alien to Marx's but tries to engage in it on such terms.
Marx I believe considered his discovery of the distinction between labor (what humanity has done forever) and labor power (the commodity purchase of ones capacity to labour) a critical finding and if the above is correct, then it exemplifies not properly engaging with Marx's work in his own terms and so all sorts of conflicting results occur from misunderstanding. Perhaps a bit like the asserted limitation in Okishio's Theorem. If they are truly sympathetic to Marx they do a poor job at it as my impression of them seems to always be based on asserted refutations of dubious validity.
The idea behind exploitation is that we are under the illusion that we are paid in full for our work. Actually, you're paid a standard wage to work for so many hours a day at the direction of the employer and your labour may produce more value than obtained in wages.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 20
Humanity is Crazy: Why Economies Fail

I gave this a like, but there is one major error. […]

RIP John McAfee....

Any updates on his dead man switch? Should have se[…]

Horrible and indeed, it seems some relatives of w[…]

Now reading

I'm reading through a 4 volume set of Romance of[…]