Refutation of this "refutation of exploitation theory"

[kerryhall]

http://www.mises.org/story/1680

Article speaks for itself...

Dig in.

[Hit The North]

The absurd example given of one worker taking five years to build a steam train doesn't remotely reflect the situation of workers under capitalism. This hypothetical workers is someone who is self employed and not someone who is compelled to sell his labour power to another and who's activity is dictated and determined by a division of labour which exerts an external power over him.

This is a well-worn bourgeois economist's trick: abstracting from the actual relations of production and projecting an abstracted version of human productive activity. In Marx's day they were called "Robinsonades" after the Robinson Crusoe novel.

EDIT: It may be telling that Bohm-Bawerk attacks Rodbertus's version of the LTV rather than Marx's. Apparently, Bohm-Bawerk claimed that Rodbertus's theory was more coherent than Marx's own. In truth, by 'coherence' he probably really means "easier to refute". Not that I would argue that the outline given in the Murphy article is any kind of refutation.

[Dean]

Apparently, the worth of the laborer's product fluctuates so drastically as to be worth a pittance where he sells it, and a fortune when the capitalist does the same.

[Hit The North]

Apparently, the worth of the laborer's product fluctuates so drastically as to be worth a pittance where he sells it, and a fortune when the capitalist does the same. Yes, what a marvellously fortuitous outcome for the capitalist! :lol:

[ZeroNowhere]

I... Don't get it. What the hell is his argument against the 'exploitation theory'? I really don't see what his argument has to do with anything.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Should I bother even looking at the link, or is it pointless capitalistic dickstroking?

[Junius]

This belongs in OI. Or better yet, the trash-can.

[Hit The North]

This belongs in OI. Or better yet, the trash-can.

Why? We need to confront bourgeois so-called refutations of the LTV and expose them for the ideological charades they are.

[Junius]

Why? We need to confront bourgeois so-called refutations of the LTV and expose them for the ideological charades they are.

...something considered an opposing ideology should be in...opposing ideologies.

[mikelepore]

If critics don't like the existing models to explain how exploitation takes place, they may suggest alterntive models to explain how exploitation takes place, but the fact that exploitation does occur is directly observable without any theory at all. The people who do all the necessary work and produce all social wealth also live in financial insecurity and deprivation, and people who perform no useful work hoard the lion's share of the wealth, therefore, exploitation is observed empirically. A better theory about the mechanism may or may not be suggested at any time.

[ZeroNowhere]

Looked it up on marxists.org, and found this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/hilferding/1904/criticism/index.htm).

[kerryhall]

Thanks comrades! I was pretty much speechless myself when I read it. I don't even know how to begin addressing the argument, as it just seems so ridiculous. Does anyone want to collaborate on an essay in response to this?

We should definitely become skilled at recognizing every argument that the capitalist economists throw at us, and refuting them one by one, in a clear, easy to understand manner.

It would be pretty sweet to get some debates going with econ profs at local universities.

[#FF0000]

Oh god I lol'd when I read this. The reasoning is so horrible. A worker gets paid $10 for making a product because that's the full value in this present (when it is most valuable), yet the boss will make $50 from selling it off tomorrow, which will then be the present, and at which point $50 will be the full value of the product, even though when the worker made this product it was only worth $10 (in the present).

Hahahahahaha what the christ is wrong with capitalist economists?

[kerryhall]

Oh god I lol'd when I read this. The reasoning is so horrible. A worker gets paid $10 for making a product because that's the full value in this present (when it is most valuable), yet the boss will make $50 from selling it off tomorrow, which will then be the present, and at which point $50 will be the full value of the product, even though when the worker made this product it was only worth $10 (in the present).

Hahahahahaha what the christ is wrong with capitalist economists?


I think you did a good job of summarizing the argument. It's hard for me to comprehend that they actually believe that, so my counter argument would be "describe a situation in real life where this actually happens."

[benhur]

Oh god I lol'd when I read this. The reasoning is so horrible. A worker gets paid $10 for making a product because that's the full value in this present (when it is most valuable), yet the boss will make $50 from selling it off tomorrow, which will then be the present, and at which point $50 will be the full value of the product, even though when the worker made this product it was only worth $10 (in the present).

Hahahahahaha what the christ is wrong with capitalist economists?

Problem is, they'll argue that value is subject to conditions such as availability etc., so it changes from to time. Customer preferences also play a role. Second, they'll argue that these 'profits' are a necessary evil, or production of similar (and other) commodities will come to a halt without more capital. I don't know how far all this can be refuted, because they can always fall back on subjective theory of value.

[ZeroNowhere]

I believe that the work I had linked to deals with Subjective 'Theory' of Value.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I believe that the work I had linked to deals with Subjective 'Theory' of Value.

I think we need to send an informant over to the Mises community to tell them that Marx acknowledged there is some subjectivity involved. They seem to think that we've never considered the prospect (or that there is no difference between exchange and use).

Any volunteers?

[kerryhall]

I think we need to send an informant over to the Mises community to tell them that Marx acknowledged there is some subjectivity involved. They seem to think that we've never considered the prospect (or that there is no difference between exchange and use).

Any volunteers?




I nominate Comrade Red or Joe Hill's Ghost, they both seem pretty on top of things.

I think that this actually might be an important thing to do. If we can open up a dialog with economists, make it transparent as possible, and publicize it as much as possible, I think we will gain supporters, especially thanks to the internet. If we can lay out each of their arguments in a clear and concise manner, then refute all their arguments in a clear and concise manner, I think that would be greatly beneficial. At some point, hopefully we can start engaging in public debates with university economics departments. If we can publicize them enough, we could gain some serious support, especially now during crisis, when the failure of capitalism is more and more apparent.

Opinions?

[tportem]

Hi, I'm new to this forum. 2 things:
First, I think it is incorrect to read this as a modern critique of marxism. Rather, it is a piece of historical economics. Böhm-Bawerk seems to believe in a labor theory of value which is definitely inconsistent with mainstream academic economic literature.

Also, do people actually still believe in the labor theory of value? Is there any empirical/logical justification for it?

[Drace]

The refutation is false. It tries to say 1/5 of the labour is not 1/5 of the labour which is false as the statement 1 does not equal to one.

He tries to do this by saying that the unfinished product is not as valuable as the finished. Thus, 1/5th of the work does not earn 1/5 of the finished price. We have to keep in mind though, that the 1/5 of the work is 1/5th of the work. The work all goes toward finishing the product. It would still take 4/5 of the work to finish. We must calculate his wage by what he has given in order to make the final product.

If the first job was to clean out the job site, and that took 2/5th of the work, then is that work completely useless? After all, that work produced no value! Course not, the pay is calculated in measures of what fraction of the total work is done, not the value.

Or else we could have someone work 4/5th of it, and the last guy doing the rest, which is assembling all the body parts, where as everyone before gathered the material. Since he finished the completed product, does he get the value of how much a completed engine is worth?

Btw, this explanation I believe is cherry picking. How does future value and present value apply to the majority of things produced. If I make toys at a factory, and it takes me a minute a toy, what is your argument then?...

Hey, at least the guy looks good in his photo. :)

[ZeroNowhere]

Böhm-Bawerk seems to believe in a labor theory of value which is definitely inconsistent with mainstream academic economic literature.
Firstly, no, he's a subjectivist. Secondly, what the fuck does mainstream academic economic literature have to do with anything?

[tportem]

In the part I am referring to, Böhm-Bawerk is speaking modulo labor theory of value.

Mainstream academic literature is relevant in placing the article in context. One should read the website as a pedagogical exercise rather than as a serious analysis. No practicing economist would waste his time with LTV except as pedagogy or as a subject historical interest.

[Drace]

Why are my posts always ignored :bored: