I’m glad you learned your Austrian lesson well, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Marxian way of looking at value is a little bit more complicated than the strawman you are attacking.
There’s nothing complicated about it; once you throw away all of the meaningless abstraction (socially necessary labor time, abstract labor, complex labor), you’re left with this undeniable fact–voluntary mutually beneficial exchange is impossible with categorically determined value. I’m sorry.
I’m just saying that the line of argument you pursue, won’t convince an Marxist. That’s all.
what line of argument will?
You’re right, there’s no way to convince Marxists. They’re simply too enamored with their religious ideology to accept reason and fact. I just demonstrated, in about 150 words, how Marxism must be wrong, and yet, they’re still around today.
If you are asking for nirvana, go and join them. If not, there are a few ‘tricks’ that I try to use:
- I always think that pursuing a line of argument that doesn’t attack a strawman [in the eyes of the person who’s views you are criticizing] is better than pursuing a line of argument that does.
- Pointing out internal inconsistencies is better than attacking from your own assumptions.
- Respect their opinion and try to grasp why they think this is so. Try to find the underlying premise that is fundamental to the opinion they are holding.
Stuff like that might help.
Oh, and most important: don’t think you can change their opinion by an internetdiscussion. At most: you can envoke their curiosity. Try to aim for that, not for ideological conversion.
But then again; that’s just me.
Your internet identity doesn’t really think modesty is a virtue, doesn’t it?
In any case: you attacked the Austrian vision of Marxism. You forgot the important step 1: proof that the Austrian reduction of Marxism is justified, based on the things they hold truth.
Esuric’s argument is powerful in just this way.
from the marxist perspective, is non-exploitative trade ever possible?
This isn’t the “Austrian vision of Marxism;” the LTV is what Marx, Smith, Ricardo says it is. I don’t have to defend simple reason.
Oke. Feel free to disagree then.
Marangos is now VERY angry for Suric’s comments on Amazon.com. Uh oh! Take him down, Suric!
I don’t see a response from him on any of my reviews.
He responded to your comment to his Mises’ Socialism review and to your Bohm-Bahwerk review.
His responses to my Bohm-Bawerk review are meaningless, and I’ve just dealt with his response on the Socialism review. He retreats from Marx and appeals to Sraffa–a sign of desperation.