Ask a Marxist anything.

Miscellaneous General
101

“Like others I’m still waiting for an answer to the transformation problem. It definitely exists.”

Not as per a Temporal Single System Interpretation.

“In the mean time, you should know that the scarcity of the factors of production make any attempt at establishing communism destined to fail. The communist utopia can only exist if there is a superabundance of all goods, otherwise conflict will result.”

All false, and why should conflict end Communism anyway.

“Past “revolutions” have failed because those societies couldn’t produce a superabundance of goods.”

Wrong again.

“A revolution in 2010 won’t lead to a superabundance of goods either.”

Considering it’s December, I believe you.

“By ignoring the dimension of time”

The TSSI does not.

“Indeed, when Rothbard labeled Marx as nothing more than a “religious eschatologist” he was right on the mark. Marxists don’t like to hear this, but historical materialism is strikingly similar to christian reabsorption theology.”

ALL political ideologies parallel religion in these respects, it does not make ANY of them invalid.

“Stating that goods will be allocated according to “the will of the people” is some sort of subterfuge to avoid rational discussion on the subject.”

Depends on the context really. I hate when Stalinists do that to me in debate though.

“It’s similar to when Marxists resort to calling modern economics a “bourgeoisie science” that is tainted ideologically and only meant to serve the class interests from which it’s author stems.”

So uhm, who’s rich in this society. Those who are proponents of bourgeoisie economics? So were the Marxists wrong?

"Marx and Engels were both wealthy, Engels being a factory owner. It we use a self-referendum argument and apply it to the thesis of Marxism itself, then we arrive at the conclusion that Engels was advocating all of what he advocated to further his own capitalist class interests. "

Except we can objectively state that promoting the abolition of the bourgeoisie class is not in the interests of the bourgeoisie class. So Engels was a class-traitor. Though it is commonly specualted, had Engels lived 20 more years, he would have gone bougie on us.

102

“Reading some SecurityCulture’s comments he actually is a Trotskyist.”

What reason have I given to be called a liar? could you not have just asked what makes Left Communism different from Trotskyism?

LeftComm and Trots has four main areas of disagreement. Trots are for participation in elections, LeftComms are not. Social-Democratic parties are considered, by Trots, to be worker’s parties. LeftComms do not consider them to be worker’s parties, the Trot analysis ignores the class in itself versus the class for itself. LeftComms do not take sides in national liberation struggles, supporting neither nations bourgeoisie, we instead advocate for independent worker’s movements. Trots will defend the colonial power from the imperialist power. Trots agree with working within even the most reactionary of Unions, Bordiga also agreed with him, however a large section of LeftComms agree we shouldn’t bother.

“Basically communism can only work if the entire world were communist.”

This is true insofaras it is tautological.

“If say 90% of the world were communist then he would still argue that the other 10% is somehow not letting the other 90% achieve utopia.”

If 90% of the world were fighting for Communism, then the 10% would stand no chance and it would quickly be 100%.

“I am pretty sure that you will state that Stalin, Lenin,Mao etc. were not true communists, the question then is why those countries that try the communism thing end up with those kind of people running them in the end ?”

Lenin was. The answer varies largely depending upon the country. Be more specific and I’ll answer for each given country.

103

“Voluntaryism just means every relationship and choice you make is voluntary.”

This is a tautology.

“So pretend one community loves capitalism. Would you allow them to stay in that community working with the free market, currency, capitalist, etc., or would you force them to become a part of the your communistic world if they didn’t want to?”

“I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I could lead you in, somebody else would lead you out.”

“What I’m saying is, instead of trying to defeat capitalism, why don’t you try to defeat scarcity for a lot of nceessary items?”

The two struggles are one in the same.

104

"1. What’s your opinion of Marx’s doctrine of polylogism? Here’s what Marxism looks like without it.

  1. What’s your opinion of the post-marxist / post-structuralist critique of marxism? So — Althusser, Lyotard, Deleuze, Hardt & Negri, et all."

I am familiar with none of the above. VAGUELY familiar with post-structuralists.

105

“The whole country was run like a gigantic corporation owned by the Central Committee.”

I do not disagree. The USSR degenerated to Capitalism very quickly after the German Revolution failed.

106

You actually never answered the question. Your response was

The statements are largely disjointed.

In your mind, what is philosophic value? And how does it differ from Economic Value?

And that leads to my question above, what is the functional purpose of economic value? Why do we economize?

107

Because it is demonstrable true, see either the rest of The German Ideology from which the quote came, or Wittgenstein.

I love Wittgenstein, but never do I see the desire to emphasize the bourgeois perspective in any of his writings. I may seep through the German Ideology, but since you bring in quotes yourself, and I desire to know what you think, why not show me, or point me to exactly where we can see it’s demonstrably true?

“It has everything to do with what they say, their words mean nothing.”

But why do they mean nothing? Why must it be because they are a product of the division of labor? Why can’t it be because inherently they are meaningless? Where does Wittgenstein make the same class assumption?

“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 do I need to accept the basics in order to want to understand it? We may not accept Creationist science, but we can certainly understand it completely. Why do I need to accept it in order to desire to understand it, and actually understand it?

“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.”

So you use the irrefutable word, “really”? Well, my friend, you’re really a walking cockroach with an afro, so I don’t see how your point is valid. You’re really of the cockroach class, so I have no idea why your point should be valid as its filled with the division of insects riddled all through it. It’s one thing to see who benefits their ideas, but how do the ideas really and practically always magically become invalid - not because of what the idea contains, but simply because it’s part of an alleged class struggle?

“To put it in perspective.”

Putting it to perspective doesn’t always equate to an idea being invalid simply because of an alleged class polylogism.

“Because if pressed we can substantiate our claims.”

Then please, take the time to substantiate these “advanced” Marxist views. I’m listening.

108

Surely, you’re familiar with polylogism — it’s a central tenet of classical Marxism.

And to be unfamiliar with the post-marxists is quite embarrassing. Althusser, in particular, is hugely influential. You should familiarize yourself with your own tradition before you come in here giving smug replies to everyone’s questions.

109

“No one is forced to participate in the division of labor”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada
http://libcom.org/history/1983-the-us-invasion-of-grenada
http://www.historyguy.com/Grenada.html

“IOW: Not everything produced in the division of labor is of use to others.”

Here is where your interpretation starts becoming incorrect.

What I meant was that, only in certain situations does a social division of labour cause an exchange-value to appear. That is, we can still socially divide labour without having exchange-value.

“IOW: For instance, when people make things for their own consumption.”

I believe, if you understood my true meaning as posted above, you would be able to correct this yourself but I’ll do it just in case.

The example given here is that, when production is done for private gains, and is unco-ordinated, exchange-value will be employed.

“IOW: In such instances, these products which no one else wants will become wanted through the value-form.”

Again, you seem reasonably intelligent, so my further explanation is probably unnecessary.

In the example given, the products were produced so that individuals could gain from them, these products were individualised. In order to socialise them we exchange them which gives rise to the exchange-value.

“Value-form desperately wants a definition here. Without it, the sentence’s meaning is unclear.”

Value-form is basically money/currency.

“IOW: People’s valuations of things are the ultimately foundation for how labor is apportioned in society.”

At this point your previous re-wording has gone too far that this is far to irrelevant for me to correct and you should be able to do so yourself.

110

“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?”

I was giving an analysis of Capitalist society.

111

“horrors of capitalism? all the horrors you think of is more than likely government’s fault, not capitalism…”

Capitalism is the cause for the current framework of government.

112

“An “international centralized party organization” is the State dolled up in some make-up.”

It is not. The State is defined by three things.

"1) A “monopoly of violence” in a given territorial area;

  1. This violence having a “professional,” institutional
    nature; and
  2. A hierarchical nature, centralisation of power and
    initiative into the hands of a few."
113

Outside of Marxian literature and circles, it may be likely that it’s not as widely known.

114

“What is the function of ‘price’ in this statement?”

Price is the amount that you must pay in order to gain ownership of a Commodity.

“To what end does this price serve?”

Price serves to allocate social labour among society.

115

Giving page one a cursory glance one thing that stands out is the implicit costs of arguing with anyone outside your circle of thought. There must be a way to expedite such argumentation. No wonder individuals avoid polarized discussion. It’s exhausting enough to define each others premises.

116

As you claimed, you’re anti-philosopher. Marx’s central claim of polylogism was that the ideas of the Bourgeoise (capital accumulation, etc.) are not true, but are merely an ideology to advance their own class interest. Suppossedly, every class works this way. How is Marx’s own writings excempt from this principle?

117

Why don’t you go ahead and answer my questions. Your nonsensical assertions, which are internal contradictions, are entirely uninteresting. Let’s stick to facts and theory so that we can avoid this kind of confusion and reach a definitive and clear resolution.

Here are my questions once again (answer what you can):

  1. 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)?
  2. How do you explain the objective exchange value of land with Marx’s version of the LTV?
  3. How do you resolve the transformation problem (Different industries, with varying degrees of organic composition of capital, have the same rate of profit)?
  4. How do you explain the objective exchange value of paper fiat money with Marx’s version of the LTV?
  5. Does Marx have a theory of business cycles at all (as opposed to his theory of crises, which is supposed to end capitalism altogether)?
  6. Marx’s version of the LTV requires certain assumptions, one of which is perfect competition and perfect information. But under such conditions, why aren’t average wage rates elevated towards the marginal product of labor, therefore eliminating all “surplus value” (Marx claims that the surplus value earned by the capitalists is turned into investment. This investment will first manifest itself as an increase in total variable capital, even if the intention is to increase the total supply of constant capital)?
  7. Can you explain why the objective exchange value of wine continuously appreciates over time (without the addition of socially necessary labor time)?
118

“You actually never answered the question.”

Oh but I did

“Your response was”

In fact I said this.

“The idea that labour is the substance of value comes out more clearly when we examine the historical preconditions for the existence of value relations. For individuals to produce exchange-values, the products they produce must be use-values not to themselves but to other individuals, that is, social use-values. Labour which creates social use-values is social labour, and presupposes a social division of labour which forces individuals to rely on the production of society to satisfy their needs. However, only in certain instances of the social division of labour do the products of society appear as exchangeable values. These instances are where the various branches of the social division of labour carry out production independently of one another and for private account. In such instances, the products of labour become social through the medium of the value-form. Value serves as the substance which undertakes the natural necessity common to every society of apportioning out the labour-time of society to different branches of production in order to serve social wants. As the medium through which labour becomes social labour, we can see clearly that the essence of value is labour. In fact, to say that the substance of value becomes a tautology, which is equivalent to saying that the substance of social labour is social labour.”

"In your mind, what is philosophic value? And how does it differ from Economic Value? "

Philosophic (using this word liberally) value being things like, oh I value my relationship with my wife more than with my mother or something. Economic Value is objective whereas philosophic value is subjective.

“And that leads to my question above, what is the functional purpose of economic value? Why do we economize?”

I explain this in recent posts if you will be so kind.

119

Responding to EternalMind.

The basic problem in your post is that you didn’t understand me. I’m not saying that a Marxist with no philosophical basis can actually counter these arguments. I’m saying that they use the bourgeoisie class lense crap thing as a tool for analysing society, not rebutting the arguments. Wittgenstein gives us the tools to rebutt the actual arguments.

120

I don’t think it’s too much to ask that he be familiar with Marxist critiques of Marx. It’s like asking a Misesian to know about Hayek and Rothbard.