Followthewhiterabbit
28th November 2008, 23:25
Some idiot free markets MF keeps trying to debunk the labour theory of value on my blog, since you guys are much more knowledgeable and will be able to give a better answer than me can you please have a look over his
comment -
He was talking about an article written by an ex-marxist.
i gave the title of the essay in the first post.
Hoppe lays out Marxs theory
"1 The history of mankind is the history of class struggles.
2 The ruling class is unified by its common interest in upholding its exploitative
position and maximizing its exploitatively appropriated surplus product.
3Class rule manifests itself primarily in specific arrangements regarding the
assignment of property rights or, in Marxist terminology, in specific "relations
of production."
4 Internally, the process of competition within the ruling class generates a
tendency toward increasing concentration and centralization. A multipolar system
of exploitation is gradually supplanted by an oligarchic or monopolistic one
5 Finally, with the centralization and expansion of exploitative rule gradually
approaching its ultimate limit of world domination, class rule will increasingly
become incompatible with the further development and improvement of "pro-
ductive forces."
"His proof of the exploitative character of a clean capitalism consists in the obser-
vation that the factor prices, in particular the wages paid to laborers by the
capitalist, are lower than the output prices. The laborer, for instance, is paid a
wage that represents consumption goods that can be produced in three days, but
he actually works five days for his wage and produces an output of consumption
goods that exceeds what he receives as remuneration. The output of the two extra
days, the surplus value in Marxist terminology, is appropriated by the capitalist.
Hence, according to Marx, there is exploitation.' "
His proof of the exploitative character of a clean capitalism consists in the obser-
vation that the factor prices, in particular the wages paid to laborers by the
capitalist, are lower than the output prices. The laborer, for instance, is paid a
wage that represents consumption goods that can be produced in three days, but
he actually works five days for his wage and produces an output of consumption
goods that exceeds what he receives as remuneration. The output of the two extra
days, the surplus value in Marxist terminology, is appropriated by the capitalist.
Hence, according to Marx, there is exploitation.'
What is wrong with this analysis?The answer becomes obvious once it is asked
why the laborer would possibly agree to such an arrangement! He agrees because
his wage payment represents present goods-while his own labor services repre-
sent only future goods-and he values present goods more highly. After all, he
could also decide not to sell his labor services to the capitalist and then reap the
"full value" of his output himself.
What is wrong with Marx' theory of exploitation, then, is that he does not
understand the phenomenon of time preference as a universal category of human
action.' That the laborer does not receive his "full worth" has nothing to do
with exploitation but merely reflects the fact that it is impossible for man to
exchange future goods against present ones except at a discount. Unlike the case
of slave and slave master, where the latter benefits at the expense of the former,
the relationship between the free laborer and the capitalist is a mutually beneficial
one.
Basically I was thinking that his comment about the labourer "agreeing" to the arrangement is a load of bull to start with as the labourer has basically no choice but to work for the capitalists.
Does anyone have a more detailed answer so I can tell this idiot to feck off. His previous answers were all "its all due to state interference, we need a totally free market" and all that bullshit.
Boooo.
comment -
He was talking about an article written by an ex-marxist.
i gave the title of the essay in the first post.
Hoppe lays out Marxs theory
"1 The history of mankind is the history of class struggles.
2 The ruling class is unified by its common interest in upholding its exploitative
position and maximizing its exploitatively appropriated surplus product.
3Class rule manifests itself primarily in specific arrangements regarding the
assignment of property rights or, in Marxist terminology, in specific "relations
of production."
4 Internally, the process of competition within the ruling class generates a
tendency toward increasing concentration and centralization. A multipolar system
of exploitation is gradually supplanted by an oligarchic or monopolistic one
5 Finally, with the centralization and expansion of exploitative rule gradually
approaching its ultimate limit of world domination, class rule will increasingly
become incompatible with the further development and improvement of "pro-
ductive forces."
"His proof of the exploitative character of a clean capitalism consists in the obser-
vation that the factor prices, in particular the wages paid to laborers by the
capitalist, are lower than the output prices. The laborer, for instance, is paid a
wage that represents consumption goods that can be produced in three days, but
he actually works five days for his wage and produces an output of consumption
goods that exceeds what he receives as remuneration. The output of the two extra
days, the surplus value in Marxist terminology, is appropriated by the capitalist.
Hence, according to Marx, there is exploitation.' "
His proof of the exploitative character of a clean capitalism consists in the obser-
vation that the factor prices, in particular the wages paid to laborers by the
capitalist, are lower than the output prices. The laborer, for instance, is paid a
wage that represents consumption goods that can be produced in three days, but
he actually works five days for his wage and produces an output of consumption
goods that exceeds what he receives as remuneration. The output of the two extra
days, the surplus value in Marxist terminology, is appropriated by the capitalist.
Hence, according to Marx, there is exploitation.'
What is wrong with this analysis?The answer becomes obvious once it is asked
why the laborer would possibly agree to such an arrangement! He agrees because
his wage payment represents present goods-while his own labor services repre-
sent only future goods-and he values present goods more highly. After all, he
could also decide not to sell his labor services to the capitalist and then reap the
"full value" of his output himself.
What is wrong with Marx' theory of exploitation, then, is that he does not
understand the phenomenon of time preference as a universal category of human
action.' That the laborer does not receive his "full worth" has nothing to do
with exploitation but merely reflects the fact that it is impossible for man to
exchange future goods against present ones except at a discount. Unlike the case
of slave and slave master, where the latter benefits at the expense of the former,
the relationship between the free laborer and the capitalist is a mutually beneficial
one.
Basically I was thinking that his comment about the labourer "agreeing" to the arrangement is a load of bull to start with as the labourer has basically no choice but to work for the capitalists.
Does anyone have a more detailed answer so I can tell this idiot to feck off. His previous answers were all "its all due to state interference, we need a totally free market" and all that bullshit.
Boooo.