Semantic games with libertarians

[Catmatic Leftist]

Every time I argue with a libertarian, they always make up excuses like "what we have is not capitalism, it's corporatism", and then the debate devolves into a semantics war.

How do I set the record straight?

[Broletariat]

Use the Marxist definition of Capitalism of course, generalised commodity production, say that your critique of Capitalism necessarily applies to anything that is a system of generalised commodity production, which corporatism/capitalism is.

[Tjis]

Don't get into word games. Even their 'really really true capitalism' will be a class society with a privileged group of owners and an exploited group of workers. Criticize those aspects in both the real world and in whatever their idea of true capitalism is.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Every time I argue with a libertarian, they always make up excuses like "what we have is not capitalism, it's corporatism", and then the debate devolves into a semantics war.

You could suggest that true free market capitalism can never exist. That's because when a government starts to deregulate the economy, capital tends to centralize into the hands of a few. In return, they use that capital to supplant democracy and get corporatist regulations to maintain that capital.

Or, you could point out that while true capitalism doesn't exist, we can compare similar countries which have more regulation and social welfare, to those which have less, and the result of inquiry is that more regulation and more social welfare tends to promote a more egalitarian and better society.

[Catmatic Leftist]

And now, he's denying the link between capitalism and imperialism.:glare:

[KurtFF8]

I've found that most of my arguments with libertarians end up in an argument over semantics and definitions.

The best thing to do if you're going to engage with a libertarian (for whatever reason you would want to do that) is try to reach an agreement on definitions and at least what you're talking about. I guarantee you that that will push you both into a more productive debate. For example you would end up explaining why what we have today is global capitalism and discussing the qualities of it and why you oppose it.

That is much better than the arguments you seem to be having.

[Catmatic Leftist]

Now he replied with this:


With any commodity, I can either use it directly to satisfy my wants, or I can exchange it. Let's say that I have 3 pieces of gold, and 3 pieces of gold have an "exchange value" of two apples. Now, Marx says that these two things have an equal exchange value to each other, so that 2 apples also have an exchange value of 3 pieces of gold. Therefore, according to Marx, if I go to the grocer and give him 3 pieces of gold, he will give me 2 apples. And if I give him 2 apples, then he will give me 3 pieces of gold.

But this is not what happens. If I buy the two apples, and then attempt to sell them back for 3 pieces of gold, the grocer will refuse. Why?

Let's look at another example. Suppose that I've been wondering around in the desert without food or water, but I have 3 pieces of gold. I find a traveling merchant and he offers to sell me 2 apples for my 3 pieces of gold. I agree, but then he wants to trade back. According to Marx, I would be ok with this because 2 apples have an exchange value of 3 pieces of gold. But I'm obviously not going to do it.

The problem with the Marxist idea of exchange value is that exchange value is not something that is "equal". In the first example, I give up my 3 pieces of gold for 2 apples because my utility function says that 2 apples have greater use value than 3 pieces of gold. I can't eat gold. The grocer exchanges his 2 apples for 3 pieces of gold, because his utility function gives 3 gold a higher value than 2 apples. He can't use two apples as savings for the future, because apples, unlike gold, rot.

Therefore, what to Marx appears to be exchange value, is really just use-value in disguise. From an outsider's perspective, one who doesn't know anything about my utility function or the grocer's utility function, 3 pieces of gold are always exchanged for 2 apples, and it seems natural to try to explain why this is. Thus, Marx would ask, "Why are 3 pieces of gold exchanged for 2 apples?", and his answer would be that this is their mutual "exchange value". But it is extremely difficult to notice what doesn't happen, and so Marx never asks "Why doesn't the buyer exchange the 2 apples back for the 3 pieces of gold."

All of this is to show that exchange value is not a relation of equality between commodities, and that therefore, the value of all commodities is not reducible to the value of human labor.

:confused:

[Tim Cornelis]

He's reciting the Subjective Theory of Value. If you're discussing Value Theory try to refute it (or not), if you were not discussing Value Theory simply point out your point about commodity production was not to provoke a discussion regarding a Value Theory. I guess...

[Tjis]

Now he replied with this:



:confused:

Right. This is very confused.
The argument boils down to 'you can't trade apples for gold with an apple merchant because the use-values of the exchanged products are not equal to the exchangers.' From this is concluded 'What is exchanged is not commodities of equal value'.

As much as this person mentions exchange value, he never actually talks about it. He just talks about what he presumes is value, pretends Marx calls this same thing exchange value and then shows that it is actually use value.

Marx didn't ignore use-value at all. He recognized that both parties need to have more use for the item they'll be receiving than for the item they're exchanging. But use is not what decides the value of the objects in an exchange. You don't have to pay more for bread if you're more hungry than usual for example. So the exchange value of commodities is not their usefulness.

So then what is it? It is the socially necessary labor-time necessary to produce it. From the producing of the machinery and the mining of the raw materials to the actual assembling. The price of a commodity will naturally gravitate towards this value because if it is much higher there'll be others that are able to produce it more cheaply. And if it is lower then the capitalist is not maximizing their profit.