A little puzzle for communists [Archive]

Self-Owner

12th February 2009, 02:49

I think there is a fatal inconsistency in Marxist thought, which arises because of a tension between three principles which are held dearly by Marxists. The principles I'm talking about are:

1) the Labour Theory of Value
2) the rule of distribution that says "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
3) the idea that workers are exploited by capitalists because the capitalists are expropriating something that rightfully belongs to the workers, namely (the value of) the product of their labour.

I might be wrong. But I don't think I am. The argument goes like this:

Imagine a farmer of above average natural strength and farming talent, who farms a piece of land and grows wheat in it. Because he is above average at farming, his plot of land yields a good harvest, more than enough for him to personally live on, but not enough that he feels inclined to give away any of the excess food over the amount he needs. Suppose further that all the tools this farmer uses were made by him, out of naturally occuring objects.

Now suppose there is also, on a neighbouring plot of the same size and quality, a person who is a farmer of below average talent. Despite all he tries, he produces just slightly less than is required to sustain him. If he was given the excess wheat the first farmer produced, he would be fine. But the first farmer does not want to give him that wheat.

The question is, what does a Marxist say in this case? In order to act in accordance with 2), the principle that allocates according to need, you must say you want to take the excess wheat off of the first farmer and give it to the second. But if you do that, you have thereby taken the fruits of his labour (and remember, by stipulation, it really is the fruits of his labour). And by doing so, you are doing something that looks suspiciously like what you say you disagree with the capitalists doing: taking the product of a worker's labour from him against his wishes, or at least not compensating him the full value of said labour. This contravenes 3), the principle that Marxist thought appears to also hold, namely that part of what is wrong or unjust with capitalism is the confiscation of labour.

I think that this on its own shows Marxism is hopelessly confused. But there is a possible response which could be made, which is that it the wheat is not solely the product of the first farmer's labour, but it is the product of the man's labour and some natural resources that he has also used (land, tools, seed, etc). But this response is where there starts to be a problem with 1), the LTV. For the LTV says that the value of any object (in this case, the wheat) comes solely from the labour that is expended in its production. If this is true, the response from natural resources cannot even get off the ground because in using these natural resources to his own benefit, the first farmer has deprived the second farmer of nothing of any value whatsoever! If all value comes from labour, the land that the first farmer uses cannot be said to have any value on its own, and so it cannot be argued that it should be in some way shared.

bloody_capitalist_sham

12th February 2009, 03:38

from each according to his ability, to each according to his need << This is for hypothetical communist societies.

For the LTV says that the value of any object (in this case, the wheat) comes solely from the labour that is expended in its production.

Well for marxists 'objects' dont neccessarily have to have any value. a rock you find in your garden doesnt for example. A commodity does however. which is the word you needed to use.

Commodities are objects its true. But their 'value' isnt intrinsic in them.

The Wheat in your example is only an object, with a 'use value'. No exchange can take place in hypothetical communism.

Therefore the wheat isnt a commodity (no exchange value) and so the LTV doesnt really apply in your example.

I think what you were intending to say is, if one person is more productive than another person, but doesnt get fully compensated, doesnt that break with marxists wanting workers to recieve the full value of their labour?

what has gone on in your example is that you have accidentally taken the communist slogan but kept the capitalist societies rules. Value, commdity, exchange etc.

Dean

12th February 2009, 04:19

I think that this on its own shows Marxism is hopelessly confused. But there is a possible response which could be made, which is that it the wheat is not solely the product of the first farmer's labour, but it is the product of the man's labour and some natural resources that he has also used (land, tools, seed, etc). But this response is where there starts to be a problem with 1), the LTV. For the LTV says that the value of any object (in this case, the wheat) comes solely from the labour that is expended in its production. If this is true, the response from natural resources cannot even get off the ground because in using these natural resources to his own benefit, the first farmer has deprived the second farmer of nothing of any value whatsoever! If all value comes from labour, the land that the first farmer uses cannot be said to have any value on its own, and so it cannot be argued that it should be in some way shared.

There is a fatal flaw in your argument here.

Firstly, you are coming to the situation from a standpoint of force. Clearly, you think that the communist perspective would be to force one farmer to give something to the other. That has nothing to do with communism. Communism is a higher form of social and economic organization. If the farmers haven't reached such a system, they will suffer.

Secondly, you assume that communist morality will attest that all distribution of product will refer back to particular certainties about ownership. Well, if that were the case, it would not be "from each according to ability, to each according to need." It would be "from and to each according to ability." That is a deliberate disparity which clearly shows that the communist attitude is productive and rational - just because the first farmer produced more doesn't mean that it is in his best interest to let others suffer while he has extra. And the notion of possession simply doesn't apply.

JimmyJazz

12th February 2009, 04:30

TheCultofAbeLincoln

12th February 2009, 08:42

Just for the record, if you say you've got a puzzle then it must be a riddle. This is your first time so we forgive you.

Also, I would thank you Dean if I could.

Reclaimed Dasein

12th February 2009, 11:29

mikelepore

12th February 2009, 23:03

Self-Owner

13th February 2009, 02:04

There is a fatal flaw in your argument here.

Firstly, you are coming to the situation from a standpoint of force. Clearly, you think that the communist perspective would be to force one farmer to give something to the other. That has nothing to do with communism. Communism is a higher form of social and economic organization. If the farmers haven't reached such a system, they will suffer.

I don't think this gets you out of the hole. Personally, yes, I do believe that the communist perspective would entail forcing one farmer to give up something to the other. But to some extent, I realize that we are going to disagree about this, given that I am a libertarian and you are a Marxist. But if you carefully read my argument again you'll notice that it nowhere made use of the fact (for I believe it is a fact, although I am aware you won't agree) that the first farmer is being forced to do something at his own expense. Polemically speaking, I need not make any such point - the argument goes through perfectly well with (the Marxist) assumption that confiscating (the value of) a worker's labour for the benefit of someone else is unjust, or at least exploitative. I do not need to say a single thing about who is forcing who in this scenario. That's why I say the argument shows an inconsistency in Marxist thought, rather than that it shows that libertarian thought conflicts with Marxist thought (because the latter statement is simply obvious and correspondingly uninteresting.)

And I'm afraid I'm entirely unconvinced by your unsubstantiated rhetoric that communism is a 'higher' form of social and economic organisation. You say that if the farmers haven't reached such a system, they will both suffer - but this is not an obvious point, at least when we're talking about both the farmers. In fact, it seems obviously wrong. The first farmer will suffer precisely if he embraces communism, because it will mean that the product of his labour will be given to someone else.

Secondly, you assume that communist morality will attest that all distribution of product will refer back to particular certainties about ownership. Well, if that were the case, it would not be "from each according to ability, to each according to need." It would be "from and to each according to ability." That is a deliberate disparity which clearly shows that the communist attitude is productive and rational - just because the first farmer produced more doesn't mean that it is in his best interest to let others suffer while he has extra. And the notion of possession simply doesn't apply.I don't believe that I've assumed any 'certainties' about ownership whatsoever. When I formulated my example, I explicitly didn't make any points about ownership. The only sense in which you could argue I invoked the concept of ownership is in the context of workers 'owning,'
in some sense of the term, the product of their own labour. But, you see, you can't argue against this premise, because it is a premise shared by Marxists! Marxists require that premise, because if the workers did not own the products of their own labour, how could they condemn capitalists for (unjustly) taking it away from the workers?

Self-Owner

13th February 2009, 02:21

Dean pretty much nailed it imo. I would just add that your scenario has basically no relevance for a modern, industrialized society in which labor is 99.999% socialized.

Marxism is not about what to do with artisans and subsistence farmers; it's about what to do with giant capitalist industries. You don't have to have read anything more than the Manifesto to know that.

No, I don't think this gets you out of the hole either. Consider the following example, which (unlike the features of my previous example which you objected to) takes place in a modern, industrialized society:

Two factory workers work, on parallel production lines, in a toothpaste factory. The worker in the first production line is of above average natural toothpaste making skill, dexterity, reflexes, and so on. The worker in the second production line is of below average toothpaste making skill. As a consequence, the socially necessary labour that the first worker expends during his work-hours is more than the socially necessary labour that the second worker expends. In fact, the socially necessary labour that the second worker expends is not sufficient, under comparison of labour-value, to provide him with enough food to stay alive. If, however, he was able to take some of the value of the labour that the first worker expended, he would be fine.

The question is, what do communists do in this situation? Do they say that the first worker should, ex hypothesi, against his wishes, subsidize the second worker? Because if they do, they advocate the taking of the full (value of the) product of a worker's labour for the benefit of someone else. And if they do not, it is clear that they have contradicted the principle of "To each... from each..."

I believe this is enough to show that the two principles contradict one another, even in a modern, industrialised society.

And I've read plenty more than just the Manifesto, thanks for asking :)

Self-Owner

13th February 2009, 02:22

Just for the record, if you say you've got a puzzle then it must be a riddle. This is your first time so we forgive you.

Feel free to elaborate if I'm wrong, but I don't see a particularly deep philosophical difference between a puzzle and a riddle. Hence, I don't see what you have to 'forgive' me for.

Self-Owner

13th February 2009, 02:27

I've been a devoted Marxist since the 1960s, I don't believe in the idea "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", and I think that a reading of the context shows that Marx didn't believe in it either.

It's great that you don't believe in that distributive principle - my argument doesn't really concern you, because it is addressed to people (and there certainly are some) who believe in all three of the principles I outlined. You apparently already agree with me about the inconsistency of that triad!

But, as uninterested in pure Marx exegesis as I am, I don't buy the thought that Marx himself didn't believe in it.

RebelDog

13th February 2009, 03:09

I've been a devoted Marxist since the 1960s, I don't believe in the idea "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", and I think that a reading of the context shows that Marx didn't believe in it either.

So is there overlap between your vision of what Marx envisaged and that of what say parecon promotes? A reward for effort and sacrifice in society?

Davie zepeda

13th February 2009, 03:58

Why should you subsidies the man who work's less and isn't willing to produce enough. He will have enough to eat and live but he won't have the small things that other harder working people get thus causing him himself to work harder to get what he want's It's a workers state.

RebelDog

13th February 2009, 04:19

To the OP: your critique presupposes the legitimacy of ownership and there is one old Scottish response to this:

A Scottish miner was walking home one night with a bunch of pheasants he had poached from a local landowner’s estate when the landowner appeared and demanded that the miner hand over the pheasants. “Why should I hand them over to you?”, asked the miner. “Because this is my land and those are my pheasants”, the landowner replied.
“OK”, said the miner, “where did you get the land from?” “From my father”, said the landowner. “So where did your father get it?”, the miner asked. The landowner replied: “From his father, who got it from his father, and so on. This land has belonged to my family for 500 years!”
“Well”, the miner continued, “how did your family get it 500 years ago?” “Oh, they fought for it”, answered the landowner. “OK then”, the miner said, “take off your jacket and I’ll fight you for it now you bastard!”

Davie zepeda

13th February 2009, 04:25

To the comrade who made that quote i like !!!!

mikelepore

13th February 2009, 07:07

So is there overlap between your vision of what Marx envisaged and that of what say parecon promotes? A reward for effort and sacrifice in society?

Yes, I believe that personal sacrifice is the aspect of labor that should be compensated by hourly incomes. I see this as two variables multipled together. One is the duration of time expended at work. The other expresses how difficult, strenuous, stressful, uncomfortable, etc. the work is. Lacking a better term, I usually call that coefficient the strenuosity. Its value for each job can be set by the whatever means other public policy gets chosen, for example, determined by elected representatives.

Anticipating a common objection: In my recommendation there is nothing extra for the doctor, because I believe training should be considered time worked, that is, the medical student should be paid for study time as long as passing grades are attained. Therefore, the doctor has no additional increment of personal sacrifice.

black magick hustla

13th February 2009, 07:10

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is meant for a distant future hypothetical post-scarcity society, not an immediate socialist state.

mikelepore

13th February 2009, 07:29

It's great that you don't believe in that distributive principle - my argument doesn't really concern you, because it is addressed to people (and there certainly are some) who believe in all three of the principles I outlined. You apparently already agree with me about the inconsistency of that triad![

Your argument concerns me, or rather, it jumped out and grabbed my attention, because you cited the example of farm produce when discussing the Marxian theory of value, and farm produce is also my favorite example for showing why the Marxian theory is correct.

Consider investors of capital, behaving typically, behaving in a way that can be sustained in the steady state of a market society. Consider the average investor buying, say, a hundred acres of farm land in a given year. Consider finding out that the soil provides some ratio of output for your efforts, such as, whatever amount of effort generates one bushel of barley would also generate the alternative of three bushels of wheat. For that increment of effort, some farmers will decide to produce the one bushel of barley, and some farmers will decide to produce the three bushels of wheat. As they say on Wall Street, there is no free lunch, and the no-brainer investments tend to disappear, so that various investment opportunities usually provide comparable returns if the risks are comparable. Therefore, the market price of barley will tend to become three times the market price of wheat. If the ratio of prices is anything other than three-to-one, investment capital would find it profitable to move from one product to the other product, reducing the supply of one and expanding the supply of the other, until the influence of supply and demand has restored the three-to-one ratio of prices. Conclusion: In the long run, goods exchange for each other in the marketplace in ratios that represent the amount of labor time that is socially necessary to produce a given unit of each type of good. That is what Marx called the Law of Value.

GPDP

13th February 2009, 07:30

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is meant for a distant future hypothetical post-scarcity society, not an immediate socialist state.

That's pretty much how I see it. I like the idea of a gift economy, and there is nothing wrong with working towards such a future. But until we get there, and it's certainly a long way off, we need a concept of production, consumption, and allocation of resources that is as fair as possible and ensures that everyone is rewarded without unfair advantages that can reproduce class society. And I happen to agree with mike and parecon theory on this.

Rewarding people according to how much property they own assures they will always have the upper hand, and it comes at the expense of others. Rewarding people according to contribution is fairer, but people that possess a natural advantage in a certain field of work can obviously be more productive, and thus reap more rewards than someone that wasn't so lucky to be born with such talent. But rewarding people according to the strenuousness of socially-valuable labor is about as unbiased a maxim as it gets. Property would not come into the picture at all, and natural advantages would be nullified, since what will ultimately matter is that you're trying your best to contribute, not that you were ultimately more productive.

Of course, I believe everyone's most basic needs should be met regardless of anything. Even someone who doesn't even attempt to contribute should at least have some food and shelter. But if she wants access to the finer things in life, and truly be part of society (and I believe there is a strong drive in human beings to do so), she will sacrifice her leisure and be properly rewarded for such.

mikelepore

13th February 2009, 07:53

But, as uninterested in pure Marx exegesis as I am, I don't buy the thought that Marx himself didn't believe in it.

What I meant was, in the context in which Marx wrote "From each according to his abilities, to each according othis needs needs", I see four factors as indicating that it can't be viewed as a "fundamental principle" of his theory: (1) He used this phrase only on one occasion in his life; (2) That use was in a private correspondence that he didn't expect would get published after his death; (3) He didn't originate it, but, rather, was repeating what others had said earlier, including utopian writers and Bible verses, and he was merely appending some comments about the advanced degree of automation that would be required for such an outcome to be realized; (4) He points out the socialist movement must defer this slogan, and move into a socialist society based on entirely different premises, but a future generation of people who have sufficiently developed automation may once again bring up this slogan.

Reference (http://www.deleonism.org/text/lv000016.htm)

synthesis

13th February 2009, 14:08

...

I admire your research into Marxist economics, but I fear that you have not done enough of it.

The LTV does not state that an object's value is solely derived from the labor involved in producing it.

"Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much a source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor which is itself only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power." - Marx

Marx's take on the LTV is basically implying that the owners of the means of producing value - the bourgeoisie - are unnecessary, and subsequently that those who operate the means of producing value - the proletariat - ought to just go ahead and cut the middleman.

In any case, socialism isn't about distributing according to the LTV. That would basically make everyone petit-bourgeois, which would defeat the point. If this system were to be strictly implemented, it would mean that people who are physically unable to work would simply starve.

Socialism is about taking the means of producing objects of value - e.g., the farm - and using them for the public good, as opposed to private gains. A private owner of the means of production can never actually produce value simply by owning it; that's why we perceive private ownership (but not personal ownership) to be unnecessary and generally detrimental to the public good.

RebelDog

13th February 2009, 16:49

Yes, I believe that personal sacrifice is the aspect of labor that should be compensated by hourly incomes. I see this as two variables multipled together. One is the duration of time expended at work. The other expresses how difficult, strenuous, streessful, uncomfortable, etc. the work is. Lacking a better term, I usually call that coefficient the strenuosity. Its value for ach job can be set by the whatever means other public policy gets chosen, for example, determined by elected representatives.

Anticipating a common objection: In my recommendation there is nothing extra for the doctor, because I believe training should be considered time worked, that is, the medical student should be paid for study time as long as passing grades are attained. Therefore, the doctor has no additional increment of personal sacrifice.

Not much I disagree with there. You are correct about doctors and other professionals. If you ask a doctor today why they are paid so much they will answer it is for all the hard work and sacrifice of years in medical school. That time learning to be a doctor is a lot cushier and involves less effort and sacrifice than working down a mine for the equivalent time. A miner should be rewarded better than a doctor.

trivas7

13th February 2009, 16:55

I admire your research into Marxist economics, but I fear that you have not done enough of it.

The LTV does not state that an object's value is solely derived from the labor involved in producing it.

"Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much a source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor which is itself only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power." - Marx

Excelllent point.

In any case, socialism isn't about distributing according to the LTV. That would basically make everyone petit-bourgeois, which would defeat the point. If this system were to be strictly implemented, it would mean that people who are physically unable to work would simply starve.
How does this differ from capitalism?

RGacky3

13th February 2009, 17:00

How does this differ from capitalism?

That question makes no sense, he's saying what Socialism is'nt.

synthesis

13th February 2009, 17:38

How does this differ from capitalism?The only difference would be the absence of the bourgeoisie - i.e., there would be nobody who could profit simply by owning. A system where resources were distributed according to the LTV would be a step up from the current system if taxes were still levied to provide a safety net, but it wouldn't be socialism - that would contradict the word itself.

couch13

13th February 2009, 18:14

No, I don't think this gets you out of the hole either. Consider the following example, which (unlike the features of my previous example which you objected to) takes place in a modern, industrialized society:

Two factory workers work, on parallel production lines, in a toothpaste factory. The worker in the first production line is of above average natural toothpaste making skill, dexterity, reflexes, and so on. The worker in the second production line is of below average toothpaste making skill. As a consequence, the socially necessary labour that the first worker expends during his work-hours is more than the socially necessary labour that the second worker expends. In fact, the socially necessary labour that the second worker expends is not sufficient, under comparison of labour-value, to provide him with enough food to stay alive. If, however, he was able to take some of the value of the labour that the first worker expended, he would be fine.

This is all very irrelevant. Tooth paste, the tube and filling the tube is made via machines. The majority of labor is mechinizied. The little bit that isn't can be. Dull factory jobs could go away.

The question is, what do communists do in this situation? Do they say that the first worker should, ex hypothesi, against his wishes, subsidize the second worker? Because if they do, they advocate the taking of the full (value of the) product of a worker's labour for the benefit of someone else. And if they do not, it is clear that they have contradicted the principle of "To each... from each..."

I believe this is enough to show that the two principles contradict one another, even in a modern, industrialised society.

And I've read plenty more than just the Manifesto, thanks for asking :)

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
Karl Marx

That phrase that your claiming proves that there is a contridition, in context shows a massively important thing you ignore.

The system comes from a time when labor has completely changed. Careerism (which you assume) will disappear, people will do all forms of labor (be they physical or intellectual), people enjoy doing it, technology has increased to the point of doing most manual labor and wealth is moved through reciprocity (we help each other. Look up the Iriquois economics). Only then does such a system exist.

Also, LTV is used to show things gain exchange value in capitalistic markets, not use-value or how things are valued in communism or helping people based on need.

Dean

13th February 2009, 18:41

I don't think this gets you out of the hole. Personally, yes, I do believe that the communist perspective would entail forcing one farmer to give up something to the other. But to some extent, I realize that we are going to disagree about this, given that I am a libertarian and you are a Marxist. But if you carefully read my argument again you'll notice that it nowhere made use of the fact (for I believe it is a fact, although I am aware you won't agree) that the first farmer is being forced to do something at his own expense. Polemically speaking, I need not make any such point - the argument goes through perfectly well with (the Marxist) assumption that confiscating (the value of) a worker's labour for the benefit of someone else is unjust, or at least exploitative. I do not need to say a single thing about who is forcing who in this scenario. That's why I say the argument shows an inconsistency in Marxist thought, rather than that it shows that libertarian thought conflicts with Marxist thought (because the latter statement is simply obvious and correspondingly uninteresting.)
No force? Then you don't have an inconsistency. If the farmers don't "need" to do anything, then there is no issue. The communist attitude is that they would understand that sharing is ultimately more beneficial than petty squabbling about the source of each parcel of labor.

And I'm afraid I'm entirely unconvinced by your unsubstantiated rhetoric that communism is a 'higher' form of social and economic organisation. You say that if the farmers haven't reached such a system, they will both suffer - but this is not an obvious point, at least when we're talking about both the farmers. In fact, it seems obviously wrong. The first farmer will suffer precisely if he embraces communism, because it will mean that the product of his labour will be given to someone else.

I don't believe that I've assumed any 'certainties' about ownership whatsoever. When I formulated my example, I explicitly didn't make any points about ownership. The only sense in which you could argue I invoked the concept of ownership is in the context of workers 'owning,'
in some sense of the term, the product of their own labour. But, you see, you can't argue against this premise, because it is a premise shared by Marxists! Marxists require that premise, because if the workers did not own the products of their own labour, how could they condemn capitalists for (unjustly) taking it away from the workers?

OK, you're arguing about an inconsistency which was never explicated. I ascribed the notion of force because it was the only logical conclusion, but if that isn't even the case, your feeble argument crashes and burns even quicker.

I don't have any need or inclination to prove anything to you. Pose a serious question and it will be answered, but this ridiculous dodging won't get you anywhere.

trivas7

13th February 2009, 22:59

The only difference would be the absence of the bourgeoisie - i.e., there would be nobody who could profit simply by owning. A system where resources were distributed according to the LTV would be a step up from the current system if taxes were still levied to provide a safety net, but it wouldn't be socialism - that would contradict the word itself.

But the LTV is not a computable value, it is an artifact of Marxist theory and therefore resources can't be distributed according to it.

I thought the whole point of socialism is was to ensure social security to those without it, but apparently -- according to you -- I'm wrong. How such a system is an improvement over liberal democracies w/ social safety nets is beyond me.

synthesis

13th February 2009, 23:42

I thought the whole point of socialism is was to ensure social security to those without it, but apparently -- according to you -- I'm wrong.Yes, you are, and as a matter of fact, that statement completely nullifies your ability to assert that other people are ignorant of Marxist theory. Socialism is not about being "nice". The point of socialism is economic democracy - democratic control of the means of producing wealth.

But the LTV is not a computable value, it is an artifact of Marxist theory and therefore resources can't be distributed according to it.Sure they can. Here's a hypothetical scenario for this hypothetical system. You have a bunch of computer chips, which cost you $20, and you assemble them into a hard drive, which you sell for $100. That $80 is the product of your labor.

This scenario is in contrast to the current system where you are paid a certain hourly wage not directly related to the value created by your labor. That's called the "alienation of labor." In the current system, the owner takes the $80 and pays you as little as he can get away with. He'll spend some of it in marketing, trying to persuade people to buy the crap you've made poorly because you don't actually give a shit about the product itself, as your compensation has nothing to do with the quality of your labor. The rest he keeps for himself.

How such a system is an improvement over liberal democracies w/ social safety nets is beyond me.Of course it is. You somehow believe that a society can be called "democratic" when its economy is under autocratic control. Therefore, I'm not surprised that all of this goes over your head.

trivas7

13th February 2009, 23:52

Sure they can. Here's a hypothetical scenario for this hypothetical system. You have a bunch of computer chips, which cost you $20, and you assemble them into a hard drive, which you sell for $100. That $80 is the product of your labor.

You confuse monetary value w/ socially necessary labor.

Of course it is. You somehow believe that a society can be called "democratic" when its economy is under autocratic control. Therefore, I'm not surprised that all of this goes over your head.Please name this nefarious autocrat who control the economy.

IMO a society that provides a social safety net is superior to one where the helpless are allowed to starve.

synthesis

14th February 2009, 00:32

You confuse monetary value w/ socially necessary labor.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Please name this nefarious autocrat who control the economy.

:confused:

Well, the easy answer would be people like the Walton family. But that's not really the point, as you should know.

The point is that even if everyone were totally equal in terms of intelligence, determination, and all those other individual qualities that capitalists laughably believe to be predictors of success in capitalist society, capitalism would still demand that most people be proletarian, because you can't have a society that consists only of owners. Therefore, capitalism is necessarily autocratic, even if the character of the autocracy changes over time.

IMO a society that provides a social safety net is superior to one where the helpless are allowed to starve.

Sometimes I wonder if you have some sort of mental condition that allows you to read the words I type without actually processing anything I'm saying.

trivas7

14th February 2009, 01:46

Well, the easy answer would be people like the Walton family.

I asked for the NAME of this nefarious autocrat, not "people like" said autocrat.

Sometimes I wonder if you have some sort of mental condition that allows you to read the words I type without actually processing anything I'm saying.

synthesis

16th February 2009, 00:49

I asked for the NAME of this nefarious autocrat, not "people like" said autocrat. OK, that's an expression. If semantics bother you that much, I'll say "oligarch," but the implication is the same: Capitalism is inherently undemocratic.

Sometimes I wonder if you have some sort of mental condition that allows you to read the words I type without actually processing anything I'm saying.

Ouch. I can admit, at least, when what you're saying doesn't appear to actually address the point I'm making. You say I'm confusing monetary value with socially necessary labor. However, I'm talking about the LTV, which precedes Marx, and then you accuse me of inadequately incorporating socially necessary labor, which should be an "artifact of Marxist theory." From where I'm sitting, it looks like you just can't make up your mind.

trivas7

16th February 2009, 02:31

OK, that's an expression. If semantics bother you that much, I'll say "oligarch," but the implication is the same: Capitalism is inherently undemocratic.

Don't you see that 'oligarch' is as much the same expression? You use language too loosely to convince me that capitalism is the personal despotism you imagine.

Ouch. I can admit, at least, when what you're saying doesn't appear to actually address the point I'm making. You say I'm confusing monetary value with socially necessary labor. However, I'm talking about the LTV, which precedes Marx, and then you accuse me of inadequately incorporating socially necessary labor, which should be an "artifact of Marxist theory." From where I'm sitting, it looks like you just can't make up your mind.My point is that the LTV for Marx is about socially necessary labor, not monetary compensation (which can't be quantified). Vide brendanmcooney's youtube videos or go to http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/
(http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/)

Die Neue Zeit

16th February 2009, 02:39

I think there is a fatal inconsistency in Marxist thought, which arises because of a tension between three principles which are held dearly by Marxists. The principles I'm talking about are:

1) the Labour Theory of Value
2) the rule of distribution that says "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
3) the idea that workers are exploited by capitalists because the capitalists are expropriating something that rightfully belongs to the workers, namely (the value of) the product of their labour.

[...]

But there is a possible response which could be made, which is that it the wheat is not solely the product of the first farmer's labour, but it is the product of the man's labour and some natural resources that he has also used (land, tools, seed, etc). But this response is where there starts to be a problem with 1), the LTV. For the LTV says that the value of any object (in this case, the wheat) comes solely from the labour that is expended in its production. If this is true, the response from natural resources cannot even get off the ground because in using these natural resources to his own benefit, the first farmer has deprived the second farmer of nothing of any value whatsoever! If all value comes from labour, the land that the first farmer uses cannot be said to have any value on its own, and so it cannot be argued that it should be in some way shared.

You are confusing the Ricardian labour theory of value with the Marxist one. You would have been much wiser to cite Steve Keen's non-Marxist criticism of Marx's underestimation of the surplus production role of machinery beyond economic depreciation. [But who knew back then the full potential of automation?]

http://www.debunking-economics.com/Marx/index.htm
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/02/06/today-tonights-changing-times/

In any case, there is little conflict between #1 and #3, because #1 (as originally formulated by Smith and Ricardo) leads to refinement in the form of #3 specifically (in the form of surplus value). Private capitalists, especially mere money-capitalists, are merely agents of indirect allocation ("indirect" because no form of capitalism can allocate the socially necessary labour at optimal levels without resorting to $$$).

synthesis

16th February 2009, 03:09

Don't you see that 'oligarch' is as much the same expression? You use language too loosely to convince me that capitalism is the personal despotism you imagine.

Well... no, they're not the same. I thought your quibble was with the fact that autocracy refers to "the rule of one."

The point is that even if the character of the owning classes can change over time, meaning class mobility, the fact of the matter is that even if all else were equal, most people would have to be proletarian because you can't have an economy composed only of owners. This makes a capitalist economy inherently undemocratic. I don't really see how you can dispute this. You can say that the economy shouldn't be democratically controlled, and we can work from there.

My point is that the LTV for Marx is about socially necessary labor, not monetary compensation (which can't be quantified).

Well, sure, but I wasn't talking about Marx's take on the LTV. The point is to contrast how a society that distributes resources according to people's efforts in developing resources would differ from the current system, which is based on relatively arbitrary wages. I wouldn't actually promote such a system, though.

trivas7

16th February 2009, 03:24

Well... no, they're not the same. I thought your quibble was with the fact that autocracy refers to "the rule of one."

The point is that even if the character of the owning classes can change over time, meaning class mobility, the fact of the matter is that even if all else were equal, most people would have to be proletarian because you can't have an economy composed only of owners. This makes a capitalist economy inherently undemocratic. I don't really see how you can dispute this. You can say that the economy shouldn't be democratically controlled, and we can work from there.

IMO capitalism is something other than democracy (which is merely a slogan). Until you can point to an historical instance of a democratically controlled economy, you're just blowing hot air, no? Or are you merely saying that class society is inherently economically undemocratic? That workers outnumber capitalists? No argument there.

Well, sure, but I wasn't talking about Marx's take on the LTV. The point is to contrast how a society that distributes resources according to people's efforts in developing resources would differ from the current system, which is based on relatively arbitrary wages. I wouldn't actually promote such a system, though.Same regarding "a society that distributes resources according to people's efforts". How is this done? In what society has this ever occurred (Not even in primitive communism had this occurred)?