Some wrong assumptions when talking about economics

[RGacky3]

1. All Markets are the same,

Commodity markets, capital markets and labor markets are all radically different, for example, labor does'nt always respond to supply and demand, demand is certainly always an issue, but people have children no matter what, they don't see what the demand is before they have a baby, also demand for labor is not based on use value perse, its based on productivity.

Also Capital markets, equities have NO use value, their only use value is possible resale and perhaps the hope of dividend, they only have any function other than that if you own enough stock to have a say in the company.

You can't just lump all the markets together nad use generalized arguments about "markets," these markets are radically different and need to be talked about seperately.

2. Marxian class and commodity/capital distinctions are concrete discriptions and and things.

They are social relations, the capitalist is ONLY a capitalist when he is using money to make more money, the worker is ONLY a worker in the sense of him selling labor power. A worker can act as both a worker and a capitalist, lets say he works part time as something, but he also is an owner of a shop.

A Capitalist can be on the board of directors but still work as a paid employee of another firm.

These class distinctions are used to examine the workings of capitalist enterprises, nothing more, nothing less.

Of coarse you can talk of the "capitalists" or the "workers" generally (as the ruling class are basically all capitalists, and the subject class are basically all workers, and generally they stay in those roles), when talking about the larger society, but you have to be careful when using it in the same sense as it is used when examining the internal workings of capitalist enterprises.

The same with commodities and capital, a hammer, bought by a guy to have in the home is not capital, its a commodity, that he bought, was made by labor power using other capital, and he has it for personal use value, it only becomes capital if he uses it to make a commodity to sell.

Or take a tomatoe, if you grow it in your backyard for your own use, and give some away to your friends, its not a commodity, but if it goes to market it is.

Thats because commodities and capital are not refering to THINGS, they are refering to social relations.

When people read marx and use strict orthodox materialism, they sometimes miss that point and come into all sorts of problems, but Marx in his text is pretty clear that he is defining them as social relations.

[Thirsty Crow]

When people read marx and use strict orthodox materialism, they sometimes miss that point and come into all sorts of problems, but Marx in his text is pretty clear that he is defining them as social relations.
And which would that "orthodox materialism" be? What is it?

Here, you're basically rehashing old Engels who mistakenly believed that science - which is materialism - can only study "things" and not "processes"
I hope you do know that Marx's critique of vulgar economics doesn't hit their suppoosed "orthodox materialism", but rather their metaphysics.

[RGacky3]

Here, you're basically rehashing old Engels who mistakenly believed that science - which is materialism - can only study "things" and not "processes"
I hope you do know that Marx's critique of vulgar economics doesn't hit their suppoosed "orthodox materialism", but rather their metaphysics.

I don't mean orthodox materialism in the sense of science, but in in the philisophical sense that no concept is valid unless it refers to material things, I should'nt say orthodox materialism, I think its better to say materialism taken to the extreme and indiscriminantly applied.

I don't want to argue, however, about the terms, its the actual assumptions I wanted to make a point about.

[RGacky3]

3. People need incentives to produce.

I.e. if there are no negative or positive incentives for production, (most conservatives argue that even if there are positive incentives but not negative incentives) No one would produce goods and services. This would mean that any economic system would need both positive and negative incentives.

This is just an economic assumption and has NO basis in behavioral science, no basis in psychology, no basis in anthopology, and basically no basis other than an economic assumption, infact it has been proven wrong over and over again many times.

It also ignores the fact that you have natural incentives, i.e. you don't cut your grass, you have a bad lawn.

What they are REALLY saying is you need negative and positive incentives to submit to Capitalist wage slavery, which is true, but that in no way means that you need it to be a productive member of society.

This is also an idea assumed by many leftists.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't mean orthodox materialism in the sense of science, but in in the philisophical sense that no concept is valid unless it refers to material things, I should'nt say orthodox materialism, I think its better to say materialism taken to the extreme and indiscriminantly applied.

I don't want to argue, however, about the terms, its the actual assumptions I wanted to make a point about.
Well, you'll have to argue about the terms since you are making a crucial mistake here, counterposing "things" and "processes" - an entirely erroneous operation, in fact.

There is no philosophical sense which states that a concept is not valid unless it refers to material things (it can refer, but it can also be invalid; the point is the way that the concept mediates its object in human thinking). This is materialism, this is science, but material things here should not be taken as an opposite of "social relations". Social relations are material as well, and cannot be disconnected from that simple fact that it is precisely their "materiality" that enables us to grasp them and change then.

Also, you can't make a valid, well thought out point about the assumption when you're making such mistakes.

For example, it is not the fault of old vulgar economics that it used the term "capital" to refer to objects used to produce wealth and labour. What is wrong here is that it substantializes a modern historical phenomenon - it turns all of history into stages of, let's say, self-realization of capital, capital coming to itself while eliminating obstacles, which means that they are unable to differentiate the specific characteristics of historical modes of production - which makes of their exercise not an "orthodox materialism", but unscientific apologia.

[RGacky3]

There is no philosophical sense which states that a concept is not valid unless it refers to material things (it can refer, but it can also be invalid; the point is the way that the concept mediates its object in human thinking). This is materialism, this is science, but material things here should not be taken as an opposite of "social relations". Social relations are material as well, and cannot be disconnected from that simple fact that it is precisely their "materiality" that enables us to grasp them and change then.


Ok, your right, I'm saying that some people use materialism the concept in the wrong way.


Also, you can't make a valid, well thought out point about the assumption when you're making such mistakes.


I take back my comment on materialism them.


For example, it is not the fault of old vulgar economics that it used the term "capital" to refer to objects used to produce wealth and labour. What is wrong here is that it substantializes a modern historical phenomenon - it turns all of history into stages of, let's say, self-realization of capital, capital coming to itself while eliminating obstacles, which means that they are unable to differentiate the specific characteristics of historical modes of production - which makes of their exercise not an "orthodox materialism", but unscientific apologia.

I suppose thats true, but the classical economists, were positive economists, almost entirely, and their normative economics were very limited in the sense that it never went beyond capitalism, meaning their explinations never had to go outside capitalism or even set up the ultimate basis of capitalism before analysing it, Marx on the other hand was both positive and more strongly normative in that he ultimately wanted to go beyond capitalism, so for that he needed to set up that basis along with his analysis.

I don't think its fair to say the classical economists were unscientific, their scope was just more limited. Its also not clear that the classical economists DID view things as non changing.

I was saying this is more of a mistake that people have when talking about economics. Even leftists,

Imo, this leads to the contradiction of saying that after a socialist revolution, and after property has been socialised, you still need to fight and/or terrorise the bourgeois, as if people can be bourgeois outside of the social relation.

[Rafiq]

3. People need incentives to produce.

I.e. if there are no negative or positive incentives for production, (most conservatives argue that even if there are positive incentives but not negative incentives) No one would produce goods and services. This would mean that any economic system would need both positive and negative incentives.

This is just an economic assumption and has NO basis in behavioral science, no basis in psychology, no basis in anthopology, and basically no basis other than an economic assumption, infact it has been proven wrong over and over again many times.

It also ignores the fact that you have natural incentives, i.e. you don't cut your grass, you have a bad lawn.

What they are REALLY saying is you need negative and positive incentives to submit to Capitalist wage slavery, which is true, but that in no way means that you need it to be a productive member of society.

This is also an idea assumed by many leftists.

People do need incentives to produce....

There isn't anything wrong with using rewards and goods to give workers an incentive to work harder, so long as the contradictions within the capitalist mode of production are done away with. income will have to very in a socialist mode of production, i.e. You can't agree to the old High School myth that Communism = Everyone is equal.

[RGacky3]

You can't agree to the old High School myth that Communism = Everyone is equal.

I don't agree with that.


People do need incentives to produce....


The evidence shows that they do not.

u6XAPnuFjJc

(keep in mind this study was done in the context of capitalism and reliance on capitalist compensation).

l7AWnfFRc7g

And there are other studies.

[blah]

"people need incentives to produce" and "people dont need incentives to produce" are absolute statements and IMHO both are wrong. It is not true that people would not produce anything if there were no incentives, the question is if they would produce less or more (I think less), and by how much. Less productivity is bad too.

Incentives certainly result in productivity increase in "mechanical" tasks, even above study proved that, so I would certainly keep incentives in such fields. Whether incentives really dont result in increase in cognitive tasks is disputed. For example this study (done in actual workplace) came to opposite conclusion of the above study:
"Performance Pay and Productivity"
Author(s): Edward P. Lazear
Source: The American Economic Review, Vol. 90, No. 5 (Dec., 2000), pp. 1346-1361


And anyway, what is bad about reasonable incentives if the mode of production is socialist?

[citizen of industry]

What is defined as an "incentive." People don't do things without a reason. It doesn't necessarily have to be a financial incentive or a negative incentive that entices people to do things.

The incentive for revolution is the construction of a better society, there is a big incentive there. I ate dinner tonight because I was hungry, hunger was my incentive. I chose a food I liked because it tasted good, taste was my incentive.

Working to make a substinance wage is an incentive, but the majority of labor isn't necessary. With a socialist mode of production, keeping society running by doing a reasonable amount of labor isn't unreasonable. There is incentive enough. Being able to do satisfying or interesting labor is incentive to educate oneself to be able to do such work. People don't become doctors for money. Having a simple job that allows plenty of freetime is incentive to do mundane but necessary work.

In any case, how much more productive do we really need to be?

[RGacky3]

What is defined as an "incentive." People don't do things without a reason.

What I mean by incentive is an outside incentive imposed on someone.


The incentive for revolution is the construction of a better society, there is a big incentive there. I ate dinner tonight because I was hungry, hunger was my incentive. I chose a food I liked because it tasted good, taste was my incentive.


Thats not what I mean, infact that would be my argument, you'll make food because you need food, you don't need a financial incentive system to do that.


In any case, how much more productive do we really need to be?

Exactly, so much productivity under capitalism is wasted, we produce more than we can consume, and then to keep producing more we make fake markets like different financial games, (because capitalism needs to continue to grow).


And anyway, what is bad about reasonable incentives if the mode of production is socialist?

What I mean is outside financial incentives, the reason you need that now is because workers have no control over their production, (of coarse you need an incnetive to produce if you have no contorl over the production.)