Does some Austrian economist, respond to the “modern” arguments of the Marxists? I know that we believe that Bohm-Bawerk finished the job, but i think it is wrong to ignore the “modern” Marxists and leave them space to spread the demagogue. Why nobody is responding to them is little strange, because they are still arguing about the validity of LTV and are attacking the Bohm-Bawerks’s arguments. Is this mean that for the Austrians the debate is finished? I’ve read Bohm-Bawerk’s critique and I think that it is “the last word”, but I believe that it is not very good idea to let spare space for demagogues to be spread all over again.
I found out that some Nitzman and Bichler raised very interesting comments against their “empirical testing of LTV as scientific theory”.Of course, Paul Cockshot and Allin Cottrell tried to respond, but except their mathematicall equations and similar stuff, I think that their response is weak. What do you think about this (the first question and the second comment)?
p.s. http://glasgow.academia.edu/paulcockshott/Papers/1119230/Testing_the_labour_theory_of_value_an_exchange
0. First, let me say that those guys did an excellent job showing Cockshott's research to be worthless. I just want to add my two cents.
1. Those quotes from Marx show how pathetic his argument is. All that Marx claims in the quotes, and all the research claims to show, is that if the price of production is lower, so is the price of the product. Duh. Does any economist disagree with that obvious statement?
That's not what the controversy was about. Marx in his polemics claimed much more, that the labor put into making something is not only one of many factors influencing its price, but the spiritually important one. Because the labor may be one of many factors determining the price, but it is the ONLY factor that gives any "value", meaning it is the only reason there exists a difference in price in the first place between the raw materials and the final product. That being the case, the factory worker deserves ALL the profits derived from an industry, because he is the only person that created that profit.
Mises dismissed that nonsense in a few well chosen sentences in Human Action.
2. Marxists live in a different world than the average person, who thinks that scientific work should be impartial. To a Marxist, carrying forward the Grand Revolution that will bring about eternal happiness for all but the evil exploiters is the only thing that matters. Simple minded adherence to such mistaken values as honesty and integrity merely gets in the way. Thus Cockshott's dirty dealings that were exposed in beginning of the paper. To him he was being a saint where to us he was being a knave.
3. P.S. Look to the bitcoin crowd and you will see that they are Marxist in their attitude to bitcoin. All's fair in promoting it, be it lies, twisted logic, name calling, you name it.
And to you bitbutter, you commented on the mises article a few months ago that described the fall of bicoin from $17 to a few PENNIES in one day. You noted that the article was being unfair, because bitcoin shot right back up to $13, representing a loss of merely 22% in one day, not a 99% loss in one day. Well, what have you to say now, when it has lost over 90% of its value in less than six months?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
This seems like a good time to place to links to replies to Cockshott & Cottrell.
Money, Money Prices, and The Socialist Calculation Debate - Steven Horwitz (1996)
Socialism against markets? A critique of two recent proposals. Geoffrey M. Hodgson (1998)
TOWARDS A NEW SOCIALISM? BY W. PAUL COCKSHOTT: Review essay - Len Brewster (2004)
So the Marxists are trying to justify a sloppy theory with an ever sloppier methodology?
Well, according to them, they are using the "scientific" empirical methods. I know what are their flaws methodologically and theoreticlly, but I was interested if someone good in mathematics can see the flaws in the "proofs". I am pretty sure that there are many ,,,
"Modern marxism" kind of sounds like "modern medieval physics".
Yap...they are total nutjobs. And I really can't imagine how, after almost 100 years, they still don't get it the Mises's calculation argument! And are "proving" the "scientific" nature of the labour theory of value. And u know who are most pathetic Marxists? The "true believers"!? The ones who are economicly ignorant, but are BELIEVING that Cockshot and the other geeks proved that Marxism is "science", as they pathetically are repeating. p.s. And every "True" Marxist, know what Marx "really meant" and why 90% od the other Marxists are wrong. Probably marxism is the most mental idea in the social history!
In the link you provide, Cockshott writes (in his open letter):
Paul Cockshott:It is possible to use input-output tables to work out how many hours of labor went into producing the total output of each industry.
How so? Who's to say whether a given hour of labor does or does not contribute to producing something? Do a factory worker's parents, in raising him, contribute labor to the production of the factory's widgets? Why or why not?
My point here is that there's no non-arbitrary way to pin down Marx's "socially necessary labor-time" without taking into account the entirety of all human activity up to the present moment. This is essentially an infinite regression.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Yap...it is definitelly accepted by 99% of the economists that Bohm-Bawerk had the last word on the subject. Indeed, he was a Brilliant man!!! Only the "true believers" are still wasting time with their non-sense and poor name calling ("scientific" Marxism). Nope, Marx nor the "modern Marxists" had not prove anything ... the whole "scientific" economic world consider them as a joke. Even the main socialists in the calculation debate consider Marxists's ideas as weak and non - relevant! And "socially necessary labour time" argument is totally destroyed by Bawerk and whole LTV. Really, I've tried to find some serious economist who believe in LTV - u can't find any! p.s. "This is essentially an infinite regression." Yap ... but totally irrelevant and useless, because value is subjective, not based on costs of production (labour for Marxists and the classical economists)!
The participants in the planning procedure are the workers' councils and federations, the consumers' councils and federations, and an Iteration Facilitation Board (IFB). Conceptually, the planning procedure is quite simple. The IFB announces what we call "indicative prices" for all goods, resources, categories of labor, and capital stocks. Consumer councils and federations respond with consumption proposals taking the indicative prices of final goods and services as estimates of the social cost of providing them. Workers councils and federations respond with production proposals listing the outputs they would make available and the inputs they would need to make them, again, taking the indicative prices as estimates of the social benefits of outputs and true opportunity costs of inputs. The IFB then calculates the excess demand or supply for each good and adjusts the indicative price for the good up, or down, in light of the excess demand or supply. Using the new indicative prices consumer and worker councils and federations revise and resubmit their proposals.- Albert and Hahnel, "Socialism as it Was Always Meant to Be" at www.parecon.org
THis is so ridiculous that I won't even start to critize.