Is Marxism old-fashioned? - 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.
User avatar
By Monti
#15182602
Is Marxism old-fashioned?
All possible apologies to believers, but the answer is YES;
1- The whole theory of Marx is based on the idea of EXPLOITATION of wage-earners by capitalists. The problem is that Marx’s proof is not correct. The surplus value theory rests on the labour theory of value. But this theory is wrong. All economists know that. The mistake of this theory appears even in Marx’s “The Capital”. Goods are sold, he tells us, at the “production price”, which results from equalisation of the profit rate. These production prices ARE the REAL value because the exchange value does not mean anything if it is not the normal price. Labour value is a useless variable in the model, but it is necessary to prove exploitation.
The real problem is not exploitation, which is not demonstrable. The problem is inequality. We must drastically reduce it.
2- The fundamental cause of inequality, Marx stated it correctly, is the capitalist system of property. Collective property of means of production is the solution and the base of socialism. But collective property is the fact that property is not private. Nothing to do with market versus planning. Market is compatible with collective property and it has the advantage to be more efficient than planning. Socialists are to design an economy which blends collective property with market. Competition between different firms which all belong to the State.
3- And even if we do not like it, a (little) place must be kept for private property of small business. It is impossible that the State creates itself at the satisfaction of customers, all restaurants, pubs, corner shops…
#15182608
Marx’s is a value theory more specifically than a labor theory of value which Ricardo best elaborates and crumbled under contradiction. One which Marx claims to explain and thus resolve the contradiction due to his attention to value.
Many have derided Marx as wrong but it seems many simply misinterpreted Marx and there are those like Andrew Kliman who make the case that when interpreted in a internally consistent fashion, many dismissals of Marx fall apart as not criticizing as much as proposing the limitations of an alternative model.
#15182636
It is wrong to say that labour ONLY creates exchange value. There is no "inner consistency" between saying that value is proportional to labour time and making selling prices a function of the amount of capital and the rate of profit, because an exchange value that is not the normal price is no exchange value. it is a fruit of imagination as ghosts. For Marx, it was a windfall that Smith, Ricardo and Mill seemed to state the labour theory of value. But if you read the Principles of Political Economy of Ricardo, you discover that labour theory of value is only an approximation and that value depends on the rate of profit and the period of production as well as on labour time.
#15182640
@Monti, LTV is wrong because of two other variables that are in play within exchange. One is supply and demand, the other is Marginisation. However that doesn't mean Marx was wrong. Marx never referred to LTV. He referred to exploitation and surplus labor. Both are correct. Why? Because although labor doesn't dictate price, it does dictate the profit margin or whether something is worth making and as such will also effect its overall supply. And given that labor dictates profit, there has to be a surplus of labor given production is a set value and by definition if that surplus doesn't go to the person who does the labor, there is exploitation.

Also I wouldn't say Marx is outdated at all. I would go as far as to say he is more relevant today than he has ever been.
#15182644
B0ycey wrote:by definition if that surplus doesn't go to the person who does the labor, there is exploitation.


Who said the capitalist doesn't deserve his cut? He is willing to save up and take risks. Capitalists will inevitably emerge, no matter how equal the starting point.
#15182645
Rugoz wrote:Who said the capitalist doesn't deserve his cut?





He is willing to save up and take risks. Capitalists will inevitably emerge, no matter how equal the starting point.


Capitalists does't exist in any other living organism on planet Earth. Capitalism isn't even prevalent in human history. It is a new concept and seems doomed in any case. So no it isn't inevitable. It is just that we have come so accustomed to it that to break away from it now would be a major shift in the global economy and nobody seems ready for that yet given we keep on given it like its umpteenth fix.

As for your original point, private property is another form of exploitation and a significant portion of the profit margin goes to the landowner who does nothing. And if the person with the idea deserves part of the surplus labor I suggest they work for it.
#15182654
B0ycey wrote:Capitalists does't exist in any other living organism on planet Earth. Capitalism isn't even prevalent in human history. It is a new concept and seems doomed in any case.


Nonsense. The first "caveman" who spent time making a bow instead of hunting with a spear like the rest of the pack was a capitalist. He could have hunted lots of tasty animals while making the bow. He didn't even know whether the bow would work.

B0ycey wrote:As for your original point, private property is another form of exploitation and a significant portion of the profit margin goes to the landowner who does nothing. And if the person with the idea deserves part of the surplus labor I suggest they work for it.


Private property will inevitably emerge even if everybody has the same labour income, which won't be the case if people are paid according to their productivity.
#15182655
Rugoz wrote:Nonsense. The first "caveman" who spent time making a bow instead of hunting with a spear like the rest of the pack was a capitalist. He could have hunted lots of tasty animals while making the bow. He didn't even know whether the bow would work.


Well this is conjecture and I suspect not even close to being true. But what we do know is that tribes didn't work or feed by themselves. They feed and worked as a collective. Very much what we understand Communism to be given I doubt a caveman understood what profit was let alone were able exploit it. The first bowman would have perhaps even shared his possession and gave his knowledge to make it for the benefit of the communal. You may as well just moooo'd

Private property will inevitably emerge even if everybody has the same labour income, which won't be the case if people are paid according to their productivity.


Private property is a human construct. It doesn't even exist without a social contract. So no Private property isn't inevitable and isn't something that can exist outside our imagination anyway. Besides, why does there have to be "pay" anyway. No other social creature gets paid for their labor and yet they still do it anyway regardless if the labor is unequal.
#15182657
B0ycey wrote:@Monti,
Marx never referred to LTV. He referred to exploitation and surplus labor.

Because although labor doesn't dictate price, it does dictate the profit margin .

by definition if that surplus doesn't go to the person who does the labor, there is exploitation.



1- There are hundreds of pages of Marx where he defends the LTV. In his mind, the relation between LTV and expoitation is obvious.
2- Could you explain formally and clearly how labour dictates the rate of profit?
3- Existence of surplus-value taken by the capitalist does not prove there is exploitation. The capitalist is right to say that profit remunerates his useful service. Pareto, a right-wing economist, ironised that we could also say the capitalist creates the product and labourers exploit him by taking a wage. Marx's exploitation rests on the central idea that as a result of LTV, only the labourer creates value. That is the reason why he is exploited by the capitalist and not the inverse. But LTV is wrong.
#15182660
Monti wrote:1- There are hundreds of pages of Marx where he defends the LTV. In his mind, the relation between LTV and expoitation is obvious.


Hundreds of pages? He didn't mention LTV once. Perhaps you can quote Marx given your certainty.

2- Could you explain formally and clearly how labour dictates the rate of profit?


Did I say it dictates the rate of profit? No I said the profit margin. That is to say the more you pay the worker the more ulitility costs you pay and as such the overall profit margin given supply and demand and marginlisation dictate price.

3- Existence of surplus-value taken by the capitalist does not prove there is exploitation. The capitalist is right to say that profit remunerates his useful service. Pareto, a right-wing economist, ironised that we could also say the capitalist creates the product and labourers exploit him by taking a wage. Marx's exploitation rests on the central idea that as a result of LTV, only the labourer creates value. That is the reason why he is exploited by the capitalist and not the inverse. But LTV is wrong.


Well that is your opinion. I would say those who are more happy with the system tend to be those who benefit greatly from it. Those who don't are more critical and feel exploited. And that feeling will ultimately decide the systems fate. If enough people are losing out, they will just revolt against the system as proven by many historic events in history.
#15182665
B0ycey wrote:Well this is conjecture and I suspect not even close to being true. But what we do know is that tribes didn't work or feed by themselves. They feed and worked as a collective. Very much what we understand Communism to be given I doubt a caveman understood what profit was let alone were able exploit it. The first bowman would have perhaps even shared his possession and gave his knowledge to make it for the benefit of the communal.


You miss the point. The question is, does he deserve to get rewarded, by whatever means? Did he contribute something to society?

B0ycey wrote:Private property is a human construct. It doesn't even exist without a social contract. So no Private property isn't inevitable and isn't something that can exist outside our imagination anyway. Besides, why does there have to be "pay" anyway. No other social creature gets paid for their labor and yet they still do it anyway regardless if the labor is unequal.


If people don't get paid according to their contribution, isn't that exploitation?
#15182675
Rugoz wrote:You miss the point. The question is, does he deserve to get rewarded, by whatever means? Did he contribute something to society?

I don't think this quite follows as it sounds like an ethical argument just as I might argue that people who care for dependents such as children, the disabled, and the elderly should be paid more. But this is of course insignificant to the matter of them actually being paid and how it corresponds to the social value of their work.
Because even in the case of a capitalist, if he was viewed in the lens of the effort he contributes, then one would just as easily make the case that they are reward monetarily far out of proportion to what they contribute.
So then comes the emphasis of risk and reward, but this seems to frame every capitalist as petite bourgeoisie starting out a small business with a loan and without a safety net for their investment. Such examples do exist but to universalize it would be a mistake where many capitalists can blow millions and still not feel any personal impact. They can lay off workers and cut other cuts before it necessarily hits them.
#15182703
Rugoz wrote:You miss the point. The question is, does he deserve to get rewarded, by whatever means? Did he contribute something to society?


What do you mean does he deserve rewarding? Given the bow predates civilization we can be pretty sure the person who first used them wasn't considering making a profit when he did and must have SOLELY created it to contribute for their society. :lol:

Your response is so fucking stupid I am going to give you a moo again. The bow would have no doubt been a shared technology with the rest of the tribe and whoever first used them wouldn't have even considered taking a profit from the kill due to tribal mentality. If you want to learn anything about human mentality pre Capitalism, I suggest you read Kropotkins Mutual Aid. In it he argues that Humans are by instinct collective and that Capitalism is against human instinct. The Self Gene by also concludes that to some extent by evaluating human history however it also explains why we are selfish in Capitalism - which is self interest. In other words, if we got rid of Capitalism tomorrow, the idea of doing things for profit would cease and that we could create for human advancement instead given there is no reason for greed due to self interest.

#15182706
B0ycey wrote:Capitalists does't exist in any other living organism on planet Earth. Capitalism isn't even prevalent in human history. It is a new concept and seems doomed in any case.


Human history is also very new and not at all prevalent in the history of earth. In the sense of the longer history it is also true that humanity is doomed in almost every case. So is that we should say "fuck it" if someone discuss about humanity?

This means the argument you have stated above does not actually bring anything useful to the argument between capitalism and communism.
#15182710
Patrickov wrote:Human history is also very new and not at all prevalent in the history of earth. In the sense of the longer history it is also true that humanity is doomed in almost every case. So is that we should say "fuck it" if someone discuss about humanity?

This means the argument you have stated above does not actually bring anything useful to the argument between capitalism and communism.


How does your response have any relevance to the post you quoted which basically was saying given humans (and all living creatures) HAVE EXISTED without Capitalism, how has Rugoz concluded that Capitalism is ultimately inevitable given it has occurred once in history?

I would go as far as saying that Capitalism is a statistical fluke and that Europe basically exported the concept to the rest of the world rather than the world finding it out for themselves due to their advancement in technology at the time and that was what their economic model they had. Had Europe still dealt with Serfs and Lords like pre Black Death, perhaps Capitalism may never existed. But in any case, society always evolves and I suspect Capitalism will ultimately fail one day. And when it does we will have something else. And I suspect that will be more cooperation in nature than being selfishness given people who feel they lose out in Capitalism are growing and the younger generation are more Socialist in mentality.
#15182717
Wellsy wrote:I don't think this quite follows as it sounds like an ethical argument just as I might argue that people who care for dependents such as children, the disabled, and the elderly should be paid more. But this is of course insignificant to the matter of them actually being paid and how it corresponds to the social value of their work.


:eh:

It's Marxists who constantly make an "ethical argument" by talking about exploitation.

Wellsy wrote:Because even in the case of a capitalist, if he was viewed in the lens of the effort he contributes, then one would just as easily make the case that they are reward monetarily far out of proportion to what they contribute.


The capitalist isn't rewarded for his effort (i.e. work), but rather for his "character". I.e. his willingness to delay gratification and take risks.

Wellsy wrote:So then comes the emphasis of risk and reward, but this seems to frame every capitalist as petite bourgeoisie starting out a small business with a loan and without a safety net for their investment. Such examples do exist but to universalize it would be a mistake where many capitalists can blow millions and still not feel any personal impact. They can lay off workers and cut other cuts before it necessarily hits them.


Yes, no doubt it's far easier for some people to be capitalists than others.
#15182729
Rugoz wrote::eh:

It's Marxists who constantly make an "ethical argument" by talking about exploitation.

Marx’s concept of exploitation isn’t reducible to only a ethical claim as he outlines a description of the process which is why exploitation isn’t always simply dismissed as ethical but targets the basis of his claim as true. Its not the case that descriptive facts are wholly independent ethical content. Marxs work is a critique of the political economy, not a set moral maxims. Although I’d say it isn’t without ethical implications based on an implicit sense of what is good is based in relation to human beings and their needs and development.


The capitalist isn't rewarded for his effort (i.e. work), but rather for his "character". I.e. his willingness to delay gratification and take risks.

A successful risk is rewarded by the nature of production and that is what has to be considered. Because risk is prevalent but its not fleshed out why a capitalist is personally rewarded to the extent they are other than through an examination of property in production.

The delayed gratification again seems to echo that its small time business owner more so than a capitalist class. The idea that they forewent time off and consumption to save money so as to have capital. A worker can save money but the extent which it is feasible that it can become capital is varies and again not on par with the capitalist class. This would make out everything to be mom and pop businesses rather than massive companies and those with a great deal of capital. While a capitalist largely gains value from not only the extent of risks in markets and such but on the work of others.
Hence the tone deaf thanks of the likes of Bezos to his workers for his space trip.

Again i could just as easily asser that workers are deserving of higher conpensation but this too doesn’t flesh out the basis of reward and its proportion to the social value of ones actions. Its just this vague capitalists deserve it because risk and delay. Which can be applies to a worker in their own lives but is entirely different.
It just seems their just deserts aren’t really examine or questioned in how they play out at all but taken as a given.

Yes, no doubt it's far easier for some people to be capitalists than others.

Of course, and practically impossible for others because there exist classes which reproduce themselves. I am simply pointing out the kind of ideological manner in which small business owners and their characteristics are used to present the character of capitalists when they’re a different class and tend to be of different qualities. It frames the ability to become a capitalists all in a terms of striving business owners rather than of the existing capitalist class. We’re all just waiting to be in the big time i guess.
#15182742
B0ycey wrote:How does your response have any relevance to the post you quoted which basically was saying given humans (and all living creatures) HAVE EXISTED without Capitalism, how has Rugoz concluded that Capitalism is ultimately inevitable given it has occurred once in history?


Human civilization also has been occurring only once in history, yet we are here.
After all, it's where and when we live in now which is the most relevant.
Something happening exactly once is neither a proof nor a disproof of the thing in concern is inevitable.

From my perspective, you also fail to prove how "capitalism is a rather short " relates to "it is doomed to fail".

And even if it does, how is it bad compared with socialism?
From what's being practiced in the past century, socialism does not end well, in many cases even worse than capitalism.
Apparently it's very unstable and often degenerates into Stalinism or tribalism, as happened in most (self-proclaimed?) Socialist or Communist countries.


B0ycey wrote:I would go as far as saying that Capitalism is a statistical fluke and that Europe basically exported the concept to the rest of the world rather than the world finding it out for themselves due to their advancement in technology at the time and that was what their economic model they had. Had Europe still dealt with Serfs and Lords like pre Black Death, perhaps Capitalism may never existed. But in any case, society always evolves and I suspect Capitalism will ultimately fail one day. And when it does we will have something else. And I suspect that will be more cooperation in nature than being selfishness given people who feel they lose out in Capitalism are growing and the younger generation are more Socialist in mentality.


Are you suggesting Europe managed to get rid of the Serf and Lords by sheer luck?

And I genuinely do not agree with your confidence in humanity will become less selfish. If anything, some sort of selfishness is the ultimate motive of some people moving forward, and socialism has failed to address this (arguably negative) natural instinct. This made any implementation of socialism easily hijacked by a very small number of selfish bullies. Capitalism, on the other hand, force these people into cooperation both among themselves and (sometimes) with other non-selfish parties.
#15182745
Patrickov wrote:Human civilization also has been occurring only once in history, yet we are here.
After all, it's where and when we live in now which is the most relevant.
Something happening exactly once is neither a proof nor a disproof of the thing in concern is inevitable.


Well it helps that it only happened once given inevitable is an event of certainty. The fact is that Capitalism has now occurred and that is true but I genuinely believe in the butterfly effect and to say something else couldn't have replaced this economic model is not considering that a communal mutual aid relationship is genuinely found in primates and has been part of most of human history in any case.

From my perspective, you also fail to prove how "capitalism is a rather short " relates to "it is doomed to fail".


My evidence is Dia-Mat and how I see the pieces moving today. I don't see how the current Western practice of QE, the wealth divide and political polarisation we see today is sustainable to maintain Capitalism. The day the Dollar loses confidence is the day people will demand something else because I genuinely believe it is ONLY standard of living why we have in the West that has holded back revolt in society today.

And even if it does, how is it bad compared with socialism?
From what's being practiced in the past century, socialism does not end well, in many cases even worse than capitalism.
Apparently it's very unstable and often degenerates into Stalinism or tribalism, as happened in most (self-proclaimed?) Socialist or Communist countries.


Well I have always said that Socialism is best under a Democracy @Patrickov.

Are you suggesting Europe managed to get rid of the Serf and Lords by sheer luck?


Actually, I never said that. But the truth of the matter is the end of Serfdom was by sheer luck. The Black death killed so many people that peasants had a better hand to demand more pay and conditions.

And I genuinely do not agree with your confidence in humanity will become less selfish. If anything, some sort of selfishness is the ultimate motive of some people moving forward, and socialism has failed to address this (arguably negative) natural instinct. This made any implementation of socialism easily hijacked by a very small number of selfish bullies. Capitalism, on the other hand, force these people into cooperation both among themselves and (sometimes) with other non-selfish parties.


Maybe. But My response is in relation to Kropotkin and the evidence is in Mutual Aid.
#15182756
Monti wrote:
Goods are sold, he tells us, at the “production price”, which results from equalisation of the profit rate.



If goods were sold for their cost of production / 'production price', then there would *be* no profit, because there's no markup.

This could be termed a Marxian 'axiom' (my phrasing), or even a Marxian 'ideal', and I've called for the 'salarizing' of all ownership positions -- a proposal that you may want to compare to your own.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Monti wrote:
These production prices ARE the REAL value because the exchange value does not mean anything if it is not the normal price.



Yet people make money every day from *arbitrage*, or the nominal difference in pricing from one moment to the next, speculation which has *nothing* to do with production price or 'original' value (my terming), in the Marxist sense.


Monti wrote:
Labour value is a useless variable in the model, but it is necessary to prove exploitation.



I think you just don't like looking at the economic equation from the *worker's* point of view. That's what Marxist economics *is* -- it's mostly a differently-politicked *political economy*, which is internally rational and sensical in its own right, whether or not one accepts the premise that labor is the source of all value. Regardless, it can be proven empirically, so one's economic 'beliefs' are squarely that, an intentional subjective shift to using some kind of *idiosyncratic* lens -- most likely non-threatening to the interests of capital *ownership* and *management*, by default.
The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

I got no idea what the avarege number in Europe i[…]

Nope, it is moralistic: Human rights themselves[…]

It is too bad we can never debate this seriously o[…]

Vexing vaxxing

Introduce a vaccine that actually prevents people […]