@SecurityCulture
Question: If there is no private ownership within a communist society, is there ownership of use? Meaning if I am standing, eating or drinking I am using, but I am I not owning—at least temporarily? If so, and these small durations of ownership are of no philosophical problem then why do problems arise when these durations increase?
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
"Surely, you're familiar with polylogism — it's a central tenet of classical Marxism."
If it is so central you should have no trouble pointing out where Marx ever uses this word.
"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."
I am familiar with my tradition. Left Communism.
Is OP going to attack negative rights or just historical "capitalism"? Also, will OP debate me at debate.org?
"How is Marx's own writings excempt from this principle?"
He never said it was.
"Why don't you go ahead and answer my questions."
I did
"Question: If there is no private ownership within a communist society, is there ownership of use? Meaning if I am standing, eating or drinking I am using, but I am I not owning—at least temporarily? If so, and these small durations of ownership are of no philosophical problem then why do problems arise when these durations increase?"
Property under Communism is defined on jus in rem principals. Use and Occupancy.
Filc:"What is the function of 'price' in this statement?"
Security Culture:Price is the amount that you must pay in order to gain ownership of a Commodity.
SecurityCulture:"Price serves to allocate social labour among society."
Social labor as opposed to? Anti-social labor? hehe just nitpicking.
How do you reconcile a common situation where the price is set at a rate where people are unwilling buy said commodity? In your hypothetical world, what happens in these scenarios? Products are going un-purchased, and the organization of laborers are going unpaid.
Also what drive/motive do these laborers have to make a cheaper more efficient product? What drive do they have to make more abundant products?
Also, I'd like to know more details about how you price goods and commodities. The assessment arbitrary to me. How do you price widgetA? Assuming you use a factory and labor to produce it? How much does widgetA cost, and how much do you pay laborers?
"Is OP going to attack negative rights or just historical "capitalism"?"
I'm not attacking anything, just answering questions. If attacking something involves answering the question then I'll do it of course.
"Also, will OP debate me at debate.org?"
I'm wasting enough time posting here as it is.
SecurityCulture:"Also, will OP debate me at debate.org?" I'm wasting enough time posting here as it is.
It would however be far more productive for all of us here, if you focused your attention in discussion with a single person here, or elsewhere. You trying to tackle everyone's questions is just too much for any real ground to be covered.
jus in rem or jus ad rem? Its odd that you would allow absolute rule or dominion over an article, but its good to know that there is a system of ownership here.
"How do you reconcile a common situation where the price is set at a rate where people are unwilling buy said commodity?"
Price is not set, it is determined. If the SNLT is too high for people to afford a given Commodity, it will not be produced. There's no profit in that.
whoa wait I jsut re-read what you wrote, when you say hypothetical world are you taking a jab at my conception of Capitalism or are you using "hypothetical world" to mean my conception of Communism? If it is the former what I said above applies, if it is the latter i will respond after you answer.
"Also what drive/motive do these laborers have to make a cheaper more efficient product? What drive do they have to make more abundant products?"
This seems to be taking a step from a Capitalist world to a Communist world, I'm not sure which economic structure we're talking about here now.
"Also, I'd like to know more details about how you price goods and commodities. The assessment arbitrary to me. How do you price widgetA? Assuming you use a factory and labor to produce it? How much does widgetA cost, and how much do you pay laborers?"
My confusion extends to this question too, sorry.
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.
Then please explain to me how their misuse of words stems from capitalism.
"jus in rem or jus ad rem? Its odd that you would allow absolute rule or dominion over an article, but its good to know that there is a system of ownership here."
jus in rem, jus ad rem is what Capitalism is defending.
good point flic. I do have questions in would like to filter through a medium though.
"Then please explain to me how their misuse of words stems from capitalism."
It has to do with the fact that by being intellectually honest, we arrive at Communism.
As soon as Marx took the LTV to its logical conclusions, everyone abandoned it. Before Marx, Adam, Ricardo, etc. were all upheld for using the LTV.
SecurityCulture,
since you like Wittgenstein so much (as I do) you might be interested in this piece.
I would also suggest that you focus your efforts on answering Esuric's questions. Obviously, it's silly to expect you to have a conversation with all thirty of us at once.
It's also silly to expect forum discussions to be particularly illuminating. If you're truly interesting in the Austrian critique of Marxism, I'd suggest Böhm-Bawerk's Marx and the Close of His System, or Mises's Marxism Unmasked.
I Samuel 8
It has to do with the fact that by being intellectually honest, we arrive at Communism. As soon as Marx took the LTV to its logical conclusions, everyone abandoned it. Before Marx, Adam, Ricardo, etc. were all upheld for using the LTV.
That sounds very, very vague. How do we arrive at Communism by being intellectually honest? Did they really abandon it because they don't like the logical conclusions, or because we moved to better theory?
Perhaps now I'm asking too much. It may be better to ask for some articles explaining this. Can you provide any literature of any sort that can elaborate further?
Really this back-and-forth two sentence reply format gets nothing done.
Security, I really implore you to either take up Seiben on his debate.org challange, or even allow one or two posters to have an exclusive thread with you here. Otherwise, this is just a giant waste of time. You will just ignore the complex arguements and focus on the chaff and one-liners.
"How do we arrive at Communism by being intellectually honest? Did they really abandon it because they don't like the logical conclusions, or because we moved to better theory?"
That's sort of the entire debate isn't it?
"You will just ignore the complex arguements and focus on the chaff and one-liners."
What evidence do you have to support this claim?
Jesse, the WIttgenstein link is broken.
Also, thanks a bunch for that article by Jeffrey Friedman. Top notch stuff!
...that answers really nothing of what I asked. If I am ignorant of it all, why can't you explain, or provide literature, essays, etc. with confidence that it can help one understand your side more?...
>_<
Filc:"How do you reconcile a common situation where the price is set at a rate where people are unwilling buy said commodity?"
SecurityCulture:Price is not set, it is determined. If the SNLT is too high for people to afford a given Commodity, it will not be produced. There's no profit in that.
Keep following your logic to the end, so that I don't have to do it for you. How do you know people won't purchase it, without a prior attempt? How do you know if society wants something? How do you know the rate individuals in society are willing to pay to acquire said commodity, before producing it?
How do you explain the fact that some individuals are willing to pay more for a specific commodity while others would purchase the commodity if it cost less? How do you account for the individual discrepancy in economic price preference, while rejecting subjective theory value?
Filc:"Also, I'd like to know more details about how you price goods and commodities. The assessment arbitrary to me. How do you price widgetA? Assuming you use a factory and labor to produce it? How much does widgetA cost, and how much do you pay laborers?"
SecurityCulture:My confusion extends to this question too, sorry.
If you do not understand how the application of LTV results in prices how can you be so sure that it's a correct thesis?
Even in a hypothetical communist world where money may be abolished. Your still faced with opportunity cost(price). You must explain how the LTV helps you determine when scarce factors of production are to be allocated to the production of specific goods, while abolishing or curtailing the production of others.
MrSchnapps: Jesse, the WIttgenstein link is broken. Also, thanks a bunch for that article by Jeffrey Friedman. Top notch stuff!
Fixed. Thanks a lot!
I have another question.
Can you provide an example, where value does not subjectively differ from person to person? Where value is universally agreed upon. Essentially I am asking you to attempt to refute subjective theory of value.
More good stuff for those interested.
http://mises.org/daily/3677
You can debate me at your leisure. By all means, finish here first.
"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.
"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.
This answer is entirely incoherent and actually avoids my question altogether. According to Marx, value is created by SNLT through the process of production, determined by the particular mode of production (in this case, the capitalist mode of production). But land is not produced; it is simply given, and yet, it has objective exchange value. Why?
"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 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/
I debated Brandon about this very issue. He decided to ban and ignore me. He doesn't actually deal with the transformation problem as such, but rather solely focuses on various Marxian interpretations of the transformation problem.
Again, my question is quite simple: Marx asserts that surplus value is earned by the exploitation of labor (M-C-M'). Additionally, constant capital, according to Marx, does not, in fact cannot, yield surplus value (it merely transfers value to commodities). Thus, the "average rate of exploitation" (profit) is determined by the organic composition of capital, and yet, different industries, with varying capital-labor ratios, have the same exact rate of profit (in fact, profit margins across the board will equalize in general equilibrium, but capital/labor ratio's will not. Entrepreneurs don't solely employ fixed proportion methods of production). How do you resolve this 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.
"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 SNLT create value or not? If so, how does it explain why a piece of paper is freely exchanged for, say, plasma screen TV's (the latter clearly requires a higher degree of labor relative to the former)? Marx could somewhat explain the objective exchange value of commodity money, but I fail to see how an objective theory of value can explain the purchasing power of fiat money.
"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.
"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 theory of crisis explains why the capitalist mode of production, which is, according to him, internally contradictory (forces of production v. relations of production), must come to an end. Capitalist's accumulate and reduce the organic composition of capital through competition (they are forced to do so) in order to maintain surplus value, but, at the same time, this process necessarily diminishes the very source of surplus value that they require. This leads to a continuous and steady fall in the rate of profit and mass unemployment (labor reserve armies), until the capitalist system destroys itself. Business cycles, by definition, refer to a repeating process.
It does not, Marx merely worked with the Classical Political Economic system which assumed these things.
Yes, Marx and the Classical's employed a theoretical construct known as the evenly rotating economy, and/or an economy of simple reproduction. But I fail to see how this helps your argument. Marx's version of the LTV is just as untenable as the Ricardo's version, and Smith's cost-of-production theory of value. This doesn't help your argument.
Why would a Capitalist eliminate his own profit?
Ask Marx. This stands at the very center of Marxian political economy; it's his major argument (that capital accumulation and competition are self-defeating). The point, though, is that Marx's theory of surplus value requires certain assumptions, such as perfect competition/information, and yet, at the same time, such an assumption eliminates any possibility of surplus value through exploitation.
"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.
"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.
This is not a serious answer and you're not a serious person. In fact, your responses demonstrate a significant degree of ignorance regarding Marxian political economy. You're one of those pseudo-Marxists that blindly regurgitates all of his sociological and philosophical arguments while entirely ignoring his economic framework. Unfortunately, the two are intrinsically connected. One cannot stand without the other. I could sit here and entirely refute Historical materialism and class conflict, but there's no need to waste my time with a troll like you, that doesn't even understand his own position.
By the way, you didn't even attempt to answer a few of my questions (how is the value of labor determined?).
"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."
Esric:a theoretical construct known as the evenly rotating economy
Esuric:The point, though, is that Marx's theory of surplus value requires certain assumptions, such as perfect competition/information, and yet, at the same time, such an assumption eliminates any possibility of surplus value.
win.
Esuric...
The transformation problem doesn't exist!
SecurityCulture...
You should take up a single debater in a new thread. Either that or one person should be posting from now on. It's just getting too messy and the intricate aspects of scholarly discussion are being ignored.
debate.org does provide a nice platform...
I'd bet money that SecurityCulture is done here. Oh well.
SecurityCulture: 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.
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.
Price doesn't reflect value in individual commodities? What's an individual commodity compared to a collective or non-individual commodity?
A bar has more labor? Bars will buy their products at a cheaper value than an individual at a grocery store, because they are buying it directly from the producer, so essentially they will raise the price just like a grocery store, but they raise the price way beyond the production that was put into making each beer itself, also, the amount of labor in handing someone a beer (since that's essentially what they do, hand you a beer which takes less than 15 seconds) is minimal. A clerk and stock person at a grocery store both do labor like a bartender (the handling and sale of the products), so why would the kind of labor at the bar have a different value? Even if we disregard the price difference compared to a grocery store, how do you explain the price differences for different days of the week? Some bars will have $1 or so specials on certain nights to attract more customers, why does the value change on a specific day if it's the same beer?
SecurityCulture: 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.
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.
Can someone not move in and out of these classes at any time, or are they sort of stuck with them indefinitely?
Company A is a large corporation that employs thousands, company B is a small business that employs 15, they are both in the same industry, so to speak. Would what company B be if it made well over a million a year, but invested this money back into the company, and the most it's owner made was $50,000 a year? Would the value of it's assets be in question regardless of how much the employees make, and would this affect their class and/or class interest?
SecurityCulture: The price of a Commodity is determined by its price of production, if that's what you're asking?
The price of a Commodity is determined by its price of production, if that's what you're asking?
What if the cost of production was insanely high due to improper methods, and the product can knowingly be made cheaper, and the individuals who would purchase this product refuse to do so, because they know it's an absurd price, what then? Are we to believe there is no other way? What if company B comes into the market and makes the same exact type of product for half the price, which price are we to believe reflects the real value of the good?
If the value is indefinite, does the price of a car change over time? How come some cars gain value over time, compared to some other cars that lose value over time? Am I to believe a 96 Honda Civic is the same price it was brand new now? Am I to believe the value of a 30 year old Camaro doesn't fluctuate depending on what condition it is in now?
If this is held to be true, what if someone stumbles upon a gold mine on their land, and the production of this is actually rather cheap to obtain, how would explain the price of gold with relatively low cost of production given how much gold is on the market?
How do you explain art that has a great value that might have taken little effort from the artist, and art that has a rising value over time?
Will the society you advocate produce less output than current output?
Bert: Please google "supply and demand."
Political Atheists Blog
Uh, is that sarcasm?
"The consequences are not that."
No, they are. Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists
"would, IF I were a primmie, however I am not so the video is irrelevant to me."
The video specifically deals with abolishing currency. Quit dodging. This is pathetic.
"It isn't."
Baseless assertions an argument do not make. Try again.
"It's a contradiction of terms to begin with."
Negative. Anarcho-capitalism isn't. Try again, this time show some effort.
"The above read more like someone who doesn't have any problems throwing false dichotomies all over the place."
What are the false dichotomies? Map them out, the true ones then.
"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."
lmao, such bs. No.
"After all, a property right is simply the exclusive right to control a scarce resource.[4] Property rights specify which persons own — that is, have the right to control — various scarce resources in a given region or jurisdiction. Yet everyone and every political theory advance some theory of property. None of the various forms of socialism deny property rights; each version will specify an owner for every scarce resource.[5] If the state nationalizes an industry, it is asserting ownership of these means of production. If the state taxes you, it is implicitly asserting ownership of the funds taken. If my land is transferred to a private developer by eminent domain statutes, the developer is now the owner. If the law allows a recipient of racial discrimination to sue his employer for a sum of money, he is the owner of the money.[6]
Protection of and respect for property rights is thus not unique to libertarianism. What is distinctive about libertarianism is its particular property assignment rules: its view concerning who is the owner of each contestable resource, and how to determine this.
A system of property rights assigns a particular owner to every scarce resource. These resources obviously include natural resources such as land, fruits of trees, and so on. Objects found in nature are not the only scarce resources, however. Each human actor has, controls, and is identified and associated with a unique human body, which is also a scarce resource.[7] Both human bodies and nonhuman, scarce resources are desired for use as means by actors in the pursuit of various goals.
Accordingly, any political theory or system must assign ownership rights in human bodies as well as in external things. Let us consider first the libertarian property assignment rules with respect to human bodies, and the corresponding notion of aggression as it pertains to bodies. Libertarians often vigorously assert the "nonaggression principle.". ....
Now in the case of the body, it is clear what aggression is: invading the borders of someone's body, commonly called battery, or, more generally, using the body of another without his or her consent.[11] The very notion of interpersonal aggression presupposes property rights in bodies — more particularly, that each person is, at least prima facie, the owner of his own body.[12]
Nonlibertarian political philosophies have a different view. Each person has some limited rights in his own body, but not complete or exclusive rights. Society — or the state, purporting to be society's agent — has certain rights in each citizen's body, too. This partial slavery is implicit in state actions and laws such as taxation, conscription, and drug prohibitions.
The libertarian says that each person is the full owner of his body: he has the right to control his body, to decide whether or not he ingests narcotics, joins an army, and so on. Those various nonlibertarians who endorse any such state prohibitions, however, necessarily maintain that the state, or society, is at least a partial owner of the body of those subject to such laws — or even a complete owner in the case of conscriptees or nonaggressor "criminals" incarcerated for life. Libertarians believe in self-ownership. Nonlibertarians — statists — of all stripes advocate some form of slavery. - Kinsella, What Libertarianism Is
SecurityCulture:Can someone purchase the RIGHTS to an idea? Yes
...
SecurityCulture:I was giving an analysis of Capitalist society.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are simple someone who thinks disjointly. Good day.
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."
"I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are simple someone who thinks disjointly. Good day."
Lmao, well played good sir. I wonder if he'll get it? (Don't think so!)
SecurityCulture:The price of a Commodity is determined by its price of production
what if price of commodity is bigger than the price of production? What if it is smaller? In other sense, should it always be equal?
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
TBH I appreciate the opportunity that SecurityCulture gave us. To come over here and chat, I applaud that. Unfortunately I don't agree with his method. Coming here trying to tackle everyone's question is just impossible. Conversations will get steered in 360 degrees.
I think it would be a neat exercise in doing what SecurityCulture did, but outline a few rules when posting. Like, I'll only respond to the first poster, and carry a discussion with them. Or I'll answer the question of every 5th poster, or something like that. Therebye creating a focus.
It would be more productive if a single conversation was carried between two individuals, but each party used their forum resources(friends, ect...) for information as posting. Carrying a non-hasty but serious debate.