The OP may find this interesting:
Austrians are the mutant descendants of Marxists
IOW: If you want someone to want something, make it so he finds it useful for him.
This is correct.
IOW: Labor that contributes to making something someone else wants is productive, and this happens when people divide their labor and trade surpluses, which condition forces people to rely on others for their consumption.
OK except for the last bit. No one is forced to participate in the division of labor, but everybody wants to because of its incredible advantages.
IOW: Not everything produced in the division of labor is of use to others.
Conceivably true. I might dedicate my time to making elephant penis sculptures out of my feces, for instance.
IOW: For instance, when people make things for their own consumption.
Quite true. I might actually want to display those elephant penis sculptures in my room, for instance.
IOW: In such instances, these products which no one else wants will become wanted through the value-form.
Value-form desperately wants a definition here. Without it, the sentence’s meaning is unclear.
IOW: People’s valuations of things are the ultimately foundation for how labor is apportioned in society.
True although it needs some dot-connecting. People value something, this demand manifests as a willingness to pay, entrepreneurs see a profit opportunity and invest in that industry. Notwithstanding the sparseness of the sentence, it is still correct.
IOW: As the medium through which labor is turned towards productive ends, we can see clearly that the essence of value is labor.
Oooohhhh… I knew it was going to happen eventually. Labor is work, when that work makes something someone else wants, it is social labor, therefore value’s essence is social labor… Nope, sorry, doesn’t follow. Someone’s valuation of a thing may lead him to be willing to spend money on it, and this willingness, if discovered or anticipated, will lead to entrepreneurs investing in making that something, but it in no way follows that therefore the essence of value is productive labor.
Remember that essence is: the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its significant individual feature or features… www.dictionary.com
Labor is not the invariable nature of value, nor is it its significant individual feature. Labor is turned towards productive ends because of value, nothing more. If labor were the essence of value, it must exist before the value, and yet value is what turns the labor towards productive ends. It exists independent of labor of logical necessity.
It is true that labor must be applied to something, in some manor, to add valuable, but it is that something itself which is valued and which was the object of the labor.
And this is compatible with Left Communism? If not, then why did you bring it up? If yes, how is this compatible with Left Communism?
“A person homesteads resources, has job offers, hires some people, produces stuff, and sells it. This is capitalism, not current crony capitalism. What do you dislike about it?”
The same thing I dislike about all kinds of Capitalism. Although in your special case I’ll add the reason that it acts as a distraction from any useful action because what you propose will and can never exist.
“The one paragraph defense of the labor theory of value you posted neither I nor likely others found persuasive.”
I’m not interested in being persuasive.
“Justify the base.”
I did.
“Use simple language if possible or if you do use foreign terminology, provide definitions.”
Or you could just ask questions about the specific words that throw you off as others appear to be doing.
“Joseph T. Salerno said, “Past expenses incurred during the production of a good are completely irrelevant to the determination of the current price of a good. The market price of a good is determined solely by the relative valuations of goods and money by the buyers and sellers of the good.””
His first sentence is spot on with the TSSI. The rest not so much as demonstrated already.
“If the subjective theory of value, the one I and others have been trying to explain and defend is wrong, explain your reasoning.”
I have, if you cannot understand it ask me to clarify certain words or parts. If you’d like another proof I can offer more. If you’d like to actually address the argument I can address your counter-argument.
“What is the philosophical value of Marx’s class analysis if it analyzes an abstraction (the group) and not the individual persons of the group as actors whom compromise the group?”
I’m going to do two things before answering your question.
-
ignore the use of the word “philosophical” and just address the value since I hold philosophy in a non-Wittgenstenian sense to be worthless.
-
Point out how the misconception of subjective exchange-value came about. By the use of the word value to apply to other things. There’s nothing wrong with applying it to other things at all, you just need to recognise the different “types” of value.
Your question holds a reductionist fallacy in it.
“Yeah, and the consequences of that is to see the vast number of humanity die. Which I don’t think you want.”
The consequences are not that.
“So - go ahead and refute the logic & reasoning present in the video please.”
I would, IF I were a primmie, however I am not so the video is irrelevant to me.
“Yeah, sorry bro - it’s impossible.”
It isn’t.
“What is wrong with anarcho-capitalism?”
It’s a contradiction of terms to begin with.
“What is wrong with self ownership?”
Depends on how you define self-ownership. Please define it for me.
“Why do you feel you need a State in order to transition it to a classless society, so that eventually workers rule and the State slowly fades away?Why do you think the State would just give up all that power?”
I don’t.
“communist country”
Contradiction of terms.
“Nor has communist leaders made themselves equal to their citizens.”
As a Left Communist, my standards for being a Communist are a bit more rigorous than what you’re used to seeing.
“While Mao ate his freshly cooked tilapia, his citizens were on the streets, searching for rats to eat…”
The horrors of Capitalism are terrible, you don’t need to tell me that.
“Can you please explain to me how can this not in any way different to claiming a sort of racism?”
Because it is demonstrable true, see either the rest of The German Ideology from which the quote came, or Wittgenstein.
“The philosopher’s problems have seemingly nothing to do with what they said”
It has everything to do with what they say, their words mean nothing.
“they are, somehow, a consequence of the division of labor.”
This is true, their misuse of words stems from Capitalism, but that’s really freaking advanced Marxist theory that you wouldn’t accept the basics of to begin with so lets not go there unless you’re willing to accept the basics and then some.
“Why is it that it seems like Marxists of all kinds tend to cling onto variations of this notion that, “Well, really they are of the bourgeois mindset; really the State is helping the bourgeois despite the bourgeois, and therefore they are all wrong” etc., etc”
This is for two different reasons. 1. Some Marxists are not interested in philosophy and instead note who benefits from these ideas, and where the ideas come from. This exposes their inherent bias and extreme likliehood of falsity. 2. Marxists tire of arguing philosophy and try to change the subject, we don’t give a damn about philosophy.
“Why must one take a look at factors external to their logic, reasoning, ideas, etc. and become attentive to structures they fall allegedly under?”
To put it in perspective.
“How is this not different than when racists would do the same thing? Please explain.”
Because if pressed we can substantiate our claims.
"There most certainly is a transformation problem. To deny this is to deny the existence of time. The only way around this predicament is if you ignore the dimension of time in production. I know of no such world where this could exist and cannot even imagine what it would be like. It is a grave error for economic philosophers to reject this concept. All conceptions of the LTV are rooted in this error.
It’s as if there will be a perpetually fixed value for commodities, and the spontaneous organization of the price mechanism, which is necessary to coordinating production, is rejected all together. All economic systems, whether capitalist or communist, face this problem head on."
Strawmans everywhere.
“Additionally, the responses of the neo-marxists as shown in your link, completely deviate from what Marx said altogether about the subject. It’s as if an entirely new theory comes into place and the Marxists are no longer Marxists. It’s another case of saying, “well Marx may have been wrong here, but this is what Marx really meant.””
That’s an interpretational argument, and frankly one I don’t care about. Address the argument itself.
“I don’t have to make a plea to “society” to produce it first.”
In the case of ordering online, you very much make a “plea” to produce it and deliver it.
“The above equals win. So I’d love to hear your refutation of self-ownership and origional appropriation. Cheers.”
The above read more like someone who doesn’t have any problems throwing false dichotomies all over the place.
The idea of “self-ownership” is quite a mockery. You fail to recognise different types of property, social and individual properties. The difference between social and individual properties is similar to the difference between the properties of a Right Triangle (Right angle, 3 sides, etc.), and the CEO’s property of his Corporation.
Original appropriation is anti-historical, humanity lived in hunter-gatherer societies that were primitive communist.
“SecurityCulture: Reading your signature phrase I must ask if you would consider yourself to be an anarcho-syndicalist with views similar to Noam Chomsky?”
I’m quite familiar with Anarcho-syndicalism, as I am with most forms of Socialist ideologies. And I can assure you I am not an Anarcho-syndicalist, or Anarchist of any shape. The main difference between Left Comms and Anarchists is that Left Comms advocate for an international centralised party organisation.
horrors of capitalism? all the horrors you think of is more than likely government’s fault, not capitalism…
You’re not a Marxist then. An “international centralized party organization” is the State dolled up in some make-up. So basically you’re a State Communist. What would you say are the main failings of Mao, Stalin, and the like?
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
horrors of capitalism? all the horrors you think of is more than likely government’s fault, not capitalism…
[/quote]
You don’t understand Marxism. To a marxist, the government (under capitalism) functions within the framework of the demands of global capital. Government failure is just further proof of the failure of capitalism.
“Being a Marxist, what’s your response to this piece excerpted from Lords of the Left-Hand Path by Stephen Flowers? (I won’t post the entire piece in whole, just what’s regarding his philosophy specifically.)”
The article constantly conflates Historical Materialism (which I support) and Dialectical Materialism (which I do not), so it is impossible for me to attack it. It’s too vague to know what it’s referring to.
“If you don’t believe in the subjective theory of value, how is a six pack of PBR is around $5, while at a bar a PBR may be $2.50, and on Friday nights they have the $1 special, if the value is not subjective, how do you explain the differences in price?”
First of all, price doesn’t exactly reflect value in individual commodities.
Second of all, a bar has more labour behind it than does just a six-pack. To get that PBR at a bar you’re paying for more than just the PBR.
“What are classes, and how do you know who’s in which class, and can people move in and out of various classes at any time, or are they specifically designated to a specific class?”
Classes are a way of dividing society to more clearly see the economic-relationships going on.
Marx defined 5 primary classes.
The Bourgeoisie, this class owns a large amount of the means of production, employs a large number of the proletariat.
Petite-bourgeoisie, this class owns small amounts of the means of production, and may or may not employ any proletariat, gains a profit.
Peasantry, this class owns small amounts of the means of production, subsists.
Proletariat, this class owns no means of production, must sell itself for a wage lest it starve, subsists.
Lumpen-proletariat, the truly wretched class, owns no means of production, most likely unemployed and devolves into crime for subsistinence.
“If you define capitalist as someone who owns the modes of production, how do you explain a laborer (an athelete) who can make a billion dollars a year when he’s not in charge of the modes of production, or that of management? Is he a proleteriat by terms of class association, or did he lose this association when he’s capital accumulation reached a certain, subjective amount? (or are the amounts objective?)”
The athlete is not part of the Proletariat. The Proletariat must be compelled into labour or face extreme economic hardships. These do not apply to an Athlete. This is a bit complex as it goes into the relationships between the classes. Some sections of the Proletariat have allied with the bourgeoisie and defend the establishment and so get paid a whole freaking lot (police, etc.)
“How would you explain price fluctuations on the market in accordance with the price of labor, price of production, and the price of capital and consumer goods?”
The price of a Commodity is determined by its price of production, if that’s what you’re asking?
lol
"
- How can you explain the objective exchange value of labor (average wage of abstract labor) with Marx’s version of the LTV (Marx rightly claims that labor is a commodity; laborers sell their labor power)?"
The same way any other commodity gets its price. The price of production.
“How do you explain the objective exchange value of land (rent) with Marx’s version of the LTV?”
“You can’t run a coal mine without machine guns”
That is to say, the “right” to land is enforced by human labour in the form of the State’s military.
“How do you resolve the transformation problem (Different industries, with varying degrees of organic composition of capital, have the same rate of profit)?”
I don’t solve it, it doesn’t exist as per the links I posted earlier, but for your convenience.
“How do you explain the objective exchange value of paper fiat money with Marx’s version of the LTV?”
The same way I explain the value of the rights to land ideas etc. The whole enforcement by the State dealio.
“Does Marx have a theory of business cycles at all (as opposed to his theory of crises, which is supposed to end capitalism altogether)?”
His crises theory is NOT supposed to end Capitalism all together. That is his bsuiness cycle theory.
“Marx’s version of the LTV requires certain assumptions”
It does not, Marx merely worked with the Classical Political Economic system which assumed these things.
“eliminating all “surplus value””
Why would a Capitalist eliminate his own profit?
“Can you explain why the objective exchange value of wine continuously appreciates over time (without the addition of socially necessary labor time)?”
SNLT is in fact added, via the enforcement of property rights by the State.
“Why are proletariats special?”
The interest of their class, is to end class society.
“The class interests of everyone else leads them to false ideologies.”
You’re using the word “false” in strange and unexplained ways.
“Why is the proletariat alone blessed with the ability to know truth?”
Again with the misuse of language, this time “truth”
What is the function of ‘price’ in this statement? To what end does this price serve? What is it’s functional purpose?
SecurityCulture
SecurityCulture