Dermezel
1st March 2010, 12:36
I have noticed a rather disturbing trend among Marxist circles, which makes the movement appear overly idealistic in general, detracts from a scientific understanding, leads to bizarre policies/conclusions and while not as callous and morally bankrupt as social Darwinism is very similar in form of fallacy:
The equation of Marx's labor theory of value with prescription, as opposed to recognizing it as a mere scientific description.
Too often I see socialists, for lack of a better word, "glorifying" hard work. As if the purpose of socialism is to make people work harder. As if, under a socialist system, we are really going to put a carpenter ahead of Albert Einstein with respect to social influence, or some idiot carpenter ahead of a sociological genius simply due to how many hours he or she works. This is not to say we will not need a proletariat democracy, but to suggest influence and social power literally be equated to how many hours a person works is just absurd. As if we are telling the proletariat- you will work HARDER under socialism.
The truth of the matter is Marx's labor theory of value scientifically describes how capitalism IS, not how it OUGHT to be. In fact, though Marx never says, one can easily come to the conclusion that having labor as a source of value represents an economic deformity. It implies sick people have to work harder for medicine, or anyone that can't work as hard as a normal healthy adult is to be relegated to being a second class citizen. In effect, capitalism does do this, among the proletariat, whereby "hard workers" are given a higher standard of living and more social esteem then anyone proletariat who is disabled due to physical or psychological conditions.
Marx did not mean this.
Recall in Capital there are two sources of value: use-value, based on needs (physical and psychological) and exchange-value based on labor.
A rationally planned economy is based on use value, or utility, or utilitarian calculus (whatever you wish to call it. ) In such a society it will not matter how much you work, but more so, how much you need. Sick people will thus not be required to work harder for their medicine.
Hence the phrase "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Even the previous transitional society will be based more on utility of merit then merely length or duration of work. In fact Marx himself when he stated:"to each according to their contribution" must be revised. That statement was made before social science figured out that often times workers will work for status, not just raw monetary resources. Hence you can still maintain a high level of productivity in an economically egalitarian environment in all probability. Likewise, I doubt he was saying to literally follow this formula in an absolute sense with respect to children and the disabled, and if he did the thought should be dismissed. And last, Marx noted that this was only until automation evolved sufficiently to remove the need for labor as was needed back in the 19th century- automation has thus far advanced rapidly, perhaps to that point if organized correctly.
A Marxist economy is thus practical and utilitarian. It is not some idealistic economy which places a deontological value on labor regardless of consequences.
To pretend otherwise is to misread Marx, promote an irrational attitude, make Marxism look deontological and hence unscientific to others, and in many respects do the opposite of what Marx is proposing.
Again, just like Darwin was not proposing we implement Natural Selection as policy, Marx is not proposing that we actually implement the labor theory of value. The proposition is to make an economy based on utility.
The equation of Marx's labor theory of value with prescription, as opposed to recognizing it as a mere scientific description.
Too often I see socialists, for lack of a better word, "glorifying" hard work. As if the purpose of socialism is to make people work harder. As if, under a socialist system, we are really going to put a carpenter ahead of Albert Einstein with respect to social influence, or some idiot carpenter ahead of a sociological genius simply due to how many hours he or she works. This is not to say we will not need a proletariat democracy, but to suggest influence and social power literally be equated to how many hours a person works is just absurd. As if we are telling the proletariat- you will work HARDER under socialism.
The truth of the matter is Marx's labor theory of value scientifically describes how capitalism IS, not how it OUGHT to be. In fact, though Marx never says, one can easily come to the conclusion that having labor as a source of value represents an economic deformity. It implies sick people have to work harder for medicine, or anyone that can't work as hard as a normal healthy adult is to be relegated to being a second class citizen. In effect, capitalism does do this, among the proletariat, whereby "hard workers" are given a higher standard of living and more social esteem then anyone proletariat who is disabled due to physical or psychological conditions.
Marx did not mean this.
Recall in Capital there are two sources of value: use-value, based on needs (physical and psychological) and exchange-value based on labor.
A rationally planned economy is based on use value, or utility, or utilitarian calculus (whatever you wish to call it. ) In such a society it will not matter how much you work, but more so, how much you need. Sick people will thus not be required to work harder for their medicine.
Hence the phrase "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Even the previous transitional society will be based more on utility of merit then merely length or duration of work. In fact Marx himself when he stated:"to each according to their contribution" must be revised. That statement was made before social science figured out that often times workers will work for status, not just raw monetary resources. Hence you can still maintain a high level of productivity in an economically egalitarian environment in all probability. Likewise, I doubt he was saying to literally follow this formula in an absolute sense with respect to children and the disabled, and if he did the thought should be dismissed. And last, Marx noted that this was only until automation evolved sufficiently to remove the need for labor as was needed back in the 19th century- automation has thus far advanced rapidly, perhaps to that point if organized correctly.
A Marxist economy is thus practical and utilitarian. It is not some idealistic economy which places a deontological value on labor regardless of consequences.
To pretend otherwise is to misread Marx, promote an irrational attitude, make Marxism look deontological and hence unscientific to others, and in many respects do the opposite of what Marx is proposing.
Again, just like Darwin was not proposing we implement Natural Selection as policy, Marx is not proposing that we actually implement the labor theory of value. The proposition is to make an economy based on utility.