Help with this economics question.

[Red Dao]

My teacher in school, who is an avid capitalist, inquired to me about a T-shirt with Guevara on it, and i told him after class that I was very interested in Marxism. He then simply told me, "I would be one too, if the economics of it made sense "

This puzzles me. I have no idea about economics , and am reading about it, but i would like to know from someone who knows more than me on the forum, how are economics presented in Marxism (it can be a simple answer that makes sense, nothing too long, im gonna read more into it, but i wanted to know a little bit about how it works.)

thanks.

[Phugebrins]

Are we talking about someone who has some idea of non-capitalist economics or just someone who doesn't like Keynesianism?

[More Fire for the People]

The essence of Marxian economics is that labor is the primary determinate of value. Simple Socialists Truths (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1903/xx/truths.htm) is an easy introduction to the labor theory of value.

[Nusocialist]

He's probably talking about the fall of the soviet union et al.

[emma_goldman]

Well, it's also about command economies. Communism is considered to be a command economy, but while I guess certain factions are the way they classify it in economics is very rigid and well, communist ideologies aren't rigid. Generally, communism/socialism is considered a COMMAND economy while capitalism is a MARKET economy.

It's bias in the economics study I think. ;)

[Noah]

The essence of Marxian economics is that labor is the primary determinate of value.

So, if I spent 10 hours making something that no one needs, it is worth more than something that took 5 minutes but is essential?

[emma_goldman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 11:58 PM

The essence of Marxian economics is that labor is the primary determinate of value.

So, if I spent 10 hours making something that no one needs, it is worth more than something that took 5 minutes but is essential?
You're forgetting the word PRIMARY. ;)

And btw, that's not just Marxist economies.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 05:58 PM

The essence of Marxian economics is that labor is the primary determinate of value.

So, if I spent 10 hours making something that no one needs, it is worth more than something that took 5 minutes but is essential?
Oops. I should have said
the essence of Marxian economics is that socially necessary labor is the primary determinate of value. If you spend 10 hours on something rather than five when it is not necessary then it is not worth more.

[Noah]

Oh okay I understand.

Thanks for helping! I try to read but all the complicated century-old books fly over my head :(

[gilhyle]

Noah

Economics is bad enough at the best of time, but it is important to admit that Marxism is expressed in an outdated form,which makes it more difficult for any current economics student to understand.

In the early centuries of capitalism, when it was widely believed that land was the only economic value, the value of money, of tradeable goods and of capital goods was widely doubted. Many thought the value of such goods was ephemeral and could easily disappear.

All early economics took this starting point and tried to define what was valuable and what was not in the new kinds of economic activity then emerging.

Marx's political economy is a critique of that kind of 'political economy' and shares its conceptual terms.

But from the mid 19 century, as with Logic, psychology and many other sciences, economics was transformed. New methods and concepts emerged. THis reflected a new confidence that capitalism worked and was here to stay. This new economics had its own (less fundamental, but more transformational) critique of traditional 'political economy'

While there are overlap between the terms used in Marxist political economy and capitalist economic theory, they are not the same.

It is possible to extrapolate a Marxist critque of modern economics from Marx's work. its also possible to use many of Marx's ideas within the modern discipline of economics.

But it is an unfortunate reflection of the intellectual weakness of communism since Marx,that Marx's work has never been definitively surpassed by a critique of economics located firmly in relation to the living tradition of economics.

Bottom line : anything about Marxist economics that you read will be useful in debating with your teacher, but it will always be an up-hill struggle to use it. He/she will always be able to charge you with relying on redundant concepts.

[Lord Koba]

"I would be one too, if the economics of it made sense "

:lol: Im going to have to remember that. Doubtless your instructor is saying that if people could have everything provided for them without having to do anything for it, then he would certainly be a Marxist, as would I. But the fact of the matter is that for the state to provide it must mandate work and is in paradox with Lenin's statement that you 'cant force men to do good work'. I guess this discussion could drift off into various forms of implementing Marxist theories and we could argue the merit of how socialist the USSR really was. But this isn't the point. The point is, from an economical standpoint a state apparatus is unable to provide without enslaving the nation - how does society organize itself where it provides all of societies needs yet on the same note does not oppress the proletariat by mandating production?


But it is an unfortunate reflection of the intellectual weakness of communism since Marx,that Marx's work has never been definitively surpassed by a critique of economics located firmly in relation to the living tradition of economics.

Agreed. The problem is that Marxist theories have become obsolete since in modern times the means of production are so widely dispersed that labor has an option to work for one company or the next (that is unless you live in one of those miner towns in West Virginia or someplace like that). The powerful prosperity of capitalism has reached such levels that it can condone labor unions and social programs and still function at a reasonably stable level. These conditions is a reason why most sociology professors (especially the ones with phD's) are 'post marxists', because in their studies -> research, they've realized that society has moved beyond the scope of Marxist principles.

[KC]

But it is an unfortunate reflection of the intellectual weakness of communism since Marx,that Marx's work has never been definitively surpassed by a critique of economics located firmly in relation to the living tradition of economics.

I would suggest reading some Hilferding.


how does society organize itself where it provides all of societies needs yet on the same note does not oppress the proletariat by mandating production?

The state doesn't mandate production; the very act of living does.


The problem is that Marxist theories have become obsolete since in modern times the means of production are so widely dispersed that labor has an option to work for one company or the next (that is unless you live in one of those miner towns in West Virginia or someplace like that).

This doesn't make the theories "obsolete" at all.


The powerful prosperity of capitalism has reached such levels that it can condone labor unions and social programs and still function at a reasonably stable level.

When capitalists can afford to tolerate these things, then yes, they will occur. But capitalists can only tolerate them in certain countries, and for so long.


These conditions is a reason why most sociology professors (especially the ones with phD's) are 'post marxists', because in their studies -> research, they've realized that society has moved beyond the scope of Marxist principles.

Most of these people move on to petty-bourgeois and bourgeois socialism, who start to believe in the evolutionary theory of transition.

[bezdomni]

Some old threads on Marxist economics and the LTV (labor theory of value).

LTV Thread 1 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53515)

Some stuff on Das Kapital (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55159)

More stuff on LTV (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55139)

Really great thread on refuting bourgeois economics (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50428)

[gilhyle]

Hilferding is useful. And there are ten or fifteen other writers on imperialsim worth reading. But the fact is that there is no really reliable, authoritative Marxist analysis of the imperialist epoch of capitalism, certainly not one that provides a basis for understanding the periods of imperialism that have emerged since the failure of the Russian Revolution and the and the consequential success of capitlaism in turning its highest epoch, imperialism, into a multi-period epoch, capable of destruction and re-growth.

Even if there were, even that would not constitute a restatement of the Marxist critique of the dominant economic scentific paradigm which would take account of the transformation of economics from the mid-nineteenth century by the elimination of the concept of value and the transformation of price into a concept understood in terms of supply and demand.

It would only be an extention of Marx's work to deal with the Imperialist epoch. I dont think Marx has been surpassed by the passage of time, but I do think that when you try to engage with your teacher, the intellectual history of the intervening period has placed significant obstacles in your way.

[Dewolfemann]

So, if I spent 10 hours making something that no one needs, it is worth more than something that took 5 minutes but is essential?


Oops. I should have said
the essence of Marxian economics is that socially necessary labor is the primary determinate of value. If you spend 10 hours on something rather than five when it is not necessary then it is not worth more.

Thats true about socially necessary labour time, but I think the question was if a good that no one needs has more value than a essential good if it embodies more labour time

If by "no one needs" you mean luxuries, then yes, a luxury embodying 10 hours of socially necessary labour time is worth more than a necessity that takes 5 minutes of socially necessary labour time. Diamonds have a higher exchange value than bread.

If by "no one needs" you mean production of a good that cannot fetch a price equal to its value on the market, yes, its still worth more in value, but its price will be much less than its value. Its part of the realization problem in Capitalism.


Activist's Guide to Political Economy (http://www.activistsguide.com)

Socially Necessary Labour Time

.... [T]his does not mean that a commodity produced by an inefficient worker, taking
twice the normal time required to produce a good, produces commodities worth
twice as much.

It does not matter how much time it takes a particular worker to produce a
commodity. It’s the time it normally takes that matters.

In Karl Marx’s words, what matters is the average time “… required to produce
an article under the normal conditions of production and with the average
degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time.”

[robbo203]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 08:51 pm
Well, it's also about command economies. Communism is considered to be a command economy, but while I guess certain factions are the way they classify it in economics is very rigid and well, communist ideologies aren't rigid. Generally, communism/socialism is considered a COMMAND economy while capitalism is a MARKET economy.

It's bias in the economics study I think. ;)
[QUOTE]

Hi Emma

I think a communist/socialist economy can only operate on a self organising basis - that is to say, on a relatively decentralised basis with numerous plans emanating from the different leves of spatial organisation - global, regional and (overwhelmingly)local. The idea of a command economy in its classical sense entails complete central planning with every planning detail contained within one single over-arching plan which would have to be be imposed from above by a techno-political elite. This is not only a complete logistical impossiblity but runs counter to everything that a communist/socialist society stands for

Cheers

Robin

www.worldincommon.org