The OP may find this interesting:
Austrians are the mutant descendants of Marxists
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/21362.aspx
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
SecurityCulture: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.
IOW: If you want someone to want something, make it so he finds it useful for him.
This is correct.
SecurityCulture: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.
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.
SecurityCulture:However, only in certain instances of the social division of labour do the products of society appear as exchangeable values.
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.
SecurityCulture:These instances are where the various branches of the social division of labour carry out production independently of one another and for private account.
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.
SecurityCulture:In such instances, the products of labour become social through the medium of the value-form.
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.
SecurityCulture: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.
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.
SecurityCulture:As the medium through which labour becomes social labour, we can see clearly that the essence of value is labour.
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.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
SecurityCulture:So that a person has a monopoly over this idea and can market it and make a profit and stuff.
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?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
"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.
1. ignore the use of the word "philosophical" and just address the value since I hold philosophy in a non-Wittgenstenian sense to be worthless.
2. 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...
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
The main difference between Left Comms and Anarchists is that Left Comms advocate for an international centralised party organisation.
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?
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo: horrors of capitalism? all the horrors you think of is more than likely government's fault, not capitalism...
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.
I Samuel 8
"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?
SecurityCulture: The price of a Commodity is determined by its price of production, if that's what you're asking?
lol
"
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.
http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/what-transformation-problem/
"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"
SecurityCulture:The price of a Commodity is determined by its price of production
What is the function of 'price' in this statement? To what end does this price serve? What is it's functional purpose?
"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.
"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.
"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.
"1. What's your opinion of Marx's doctrine of polylogism? Here's what Marxism looks like without it.
2. 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.
"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.
Gero:If the subjective theory of value, the one I and others have been trying to explain and defend is wrong, explain your reasoning.
SecurityCulture:I have, if you cannot understand it ask me to clarify certain words or parts.
You actually never answered the question. Your response was
SecurityCulture:"Also, do you object to value being subjective?" Economic value? Yes Philosophic value? No
Economic value? Yes
Philosophic value? No
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?
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.
SecurityCulture: "1. What's your opinion of Marx's doctrine of polylogism? Here's what Marxism looks like without it. 2. 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.
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.
"No one is forced to participate in the division of labor"
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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;
2) This violence having a "professional," institutional nature; and 3) A hierarchical nature, centralisation of power and initiative into the hands of a few."
Jesse: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.
Outside of Marxian literature and circles, it may be likely that it's not as widely known.
"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.
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.
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
"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"
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?
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):
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
"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.
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.
filc: Outside of Marxian literature and circles, it may be likely that it's not as widely known.
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.