Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Marxism and the workers

rated by 0 users
Answered (Verified) This post has 2 verified answers | 113 Replies | 8 Followers

Top 200 Contributor
372 Posts
Points 8,230
Buzz Killington posted on Sun, Apr 29 2012 11:37 AM

What does everyone here think of Marxism? Doesn't Karl Marx make a good point about capitalists and the workers?

I.e. the capitalist does nothing but sit around and give the workers only a portion of the value that they produce?

"Nutty as squirrel shit."

Answered (Verified) Verified Answer

Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,987 Posts
Points 89,745
Verified by Buzz Killington

The price of factors of production are determined via supply and demand. Thinking that workers receive a share of their factorites profits is like thinking that the iron that goes into the car receives a share of the cars selling price.

For more, check out Böhm-Bawerk's Marginal pairs: http://mises.org/daily/5903/

After learning what they are, see them applied to labor economics: http://mises.org/daily/5934/The-Irrelevance-of-Worker-Need-and-Employer-Greed-in-Determining-Wages

Finally, some stuff I just found that might be of interest as well:

http://mises.org/daily/1680

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOzotWrHheU

  • | Post Points: 40
Top 100 Contributor
Male
792 Posts
Points 13,825
Verified by Buzz Killington

By "value" I mean how much money a certain item will bring. An example would be if I was hired by Willy Wonka to make chocolate, I create the "value" (the chocolate) through my labor, yet he only gives me a portion of the money that results from him selling the chocolate on the market.

 

That's a common misconception of the origin of value.  Your labor did not create the value; the buyers' desire did.  That is, your labor created chocolate.  The buyers' desire for chocolate made that chocolate valuable.  In your example, then, Mr. Wonka paid you an amount based on his desire to own the chocolate you produced and your unwillingness to produce the chocolate without compensation.  He purchased the output of your labor with a fee agreed upon by both of you.  After the transaction, why is it any of your business what he does with it, either eating it himself, or selling it to someone else?


faber est suae quisque fortunae

  • | Post Points: 40

All Replies

Top 500 Contributor
Male
220 Posts
Points 4,980
tunk replied on Wed, May 2 2012 10:02 PM

Laotzu del Zinn:
200k+ years of society without private property

For 200,000 years theft was not considered immoral or treated as a crime? I'm gonna need some evidence for this.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
743 Posts
Points 11,795

I find it hilarious that you'll jump on me but not him. Why is that? Please, by all means, do explain yourself.

Cuz I think you're a smart guy. 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
1,899 Posts
Points 37,230

tunk:

Laotzu del Zinn:
200k+ years of society without private property

For 200,000 years theft was not considered immoral or treated as a crime? I'm gonna need some evidence for this.

 

 

The existence of social controls against theft does not make something property, let alone private property.  The existence of a specific legal title to possession and control makes something property.

In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!

~Peter Kropotkin

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
220 Posts
Points 4,980
tunk replied on Wed, May 2 2012 10:35 PM

Laotzu del Zinn:
The existence of social controls against theft does not make something property

Yes it does. The people who enforce this rule, and/or the people on whose behalf they enforce it, claim the right to exclude thieves from the use of the resource.

Again, I ask for evidence for your claim that human beings lived without prohibitions on theft for 200k years.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
372 Posts
Points 8,230

Laotzu, I want your computer (mine is slow and crappy).

http://us.cdn2.123rf.com/168nwm/kreefax/kreefax0702/kreefax070200018/759884-young-businessman-pointing-a-gun-towards-the-camera-shallow-depth-of-field.jpg

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
1,899 Posts
Points 37,230

tunk:

Laotzu del Zinn:
The existence of social controls against theft does not make something property

Yes it does. The people who enforce this rule, and/or the people on whose behalf they enforce it, claim the right to exclude thieves from the use of the resource.

Again, I ask for evidence for your claim that human beings lived without prohibitions on theft for 200k years.

 

All we can do is butt heads here.  You've found a convenient semantical ploy to dismiss any claims about the legitimacy of property.  If I am against wanton theft, obviously I support full 100% capitalist private property rights... right? 

In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!

~Peter Kropotkin

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
1,899 Posts
Points 37,230

Buzz Killington:

Laotzu, I want your computer (mine is slow and crappy).

http://us.cdn2.123rf.com/168nwm/kreefax/kreefax0702/kreefax070200018/759884-young-businessman-pointing-a-gun-towards-the-camera-shallow-depth-of-field.jpg

 

That's a pretty tiny gun.  You sure you want to go down this road? wink

In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!

~Peter Kropotkin

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
372 Posts
Points 8,230

Laotzu Del Zinn:

That's a pretty tiny gun.  You sure you want to go down this road? wink

Do you have a bigger one?

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
2,360 Posts
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Thu, May 3 2012 7:05 AM

Laotzu del Zinn:
All we can do is butt heads here.

No. That's you butting your head against the walls of the corner in which you inevitably and repeatedly paint yourself. 

You've found a convenient semantical ploy to dismiss any claims about the legitimacy of property.

No. That's not a ploy -- it's logic. How exactly do you steal something that is not owned and who do you steal it from? How do you steal a non-property?

If I am against wanton theft, obviously I support full 100% capitalist private property rights... right? 

What % private property rights do you support, which ones exactly, and why those at the exclusion of the rest? 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,922 Posts
Points 79,590

auctionguy10:
I find it hilarious that you'll jump on me but not him. Why is that? Please, by all means, do explain yourself.

Cuz I think you're a smart guy.

Well thanks. smiley

To be honest, though, I haven't really been looking for any mutual understanding with Laotzu in this thread, because I don't think any can be had. His position is essentially this: "Private property (in the means of production) is a social institution only because those who consider it legitimate have superior force over those who don't, but someday this won't be the case and private property (in the means of production) will then cease to exist as a social institution". There's no argument there. It's just a statement of belief.

His whole shtick seems to be simply about appearing, or trying to appear, more powerful than those he "debates" with. He apparently sees "debating" as nothing more than fighting (literally) with words. Hence he seems to have no problem with deliberately misinterpreting the arguments that others make. Since he's apparently a big fan of martial arts, this doesn't surprise me, as martial arts considers misdirection against one's opponent to be a very good (if not essential) tactic. But in terms of logical discourse, this is a fundamentally dishonest position.

So that's why I call him out on his BS. I want it to be known publicly, and for the record, that - at least as far as I can tell - he's a fraud when it comes to debate.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,987 Posts
Points 89,745

Just wondering, did you answer my reply at any point in this insanely long conversation?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,922 Posts
Points 79,590

I did. smiley

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
1,899 Posts
Points 37,230

Buzz Killington:

Laotzu Del Zinn:

That's a pretty tiny gun.  You sure you want to go down this road? wink

Do you have a bigger one?

 

Are you sure you want to find out?

In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!

~Peter Kropotkin

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
1,899 Posts
Points 37,230

No. That's not a ploy -- it's logic. How exactly do you steal something that is not owned and who do you steal it from? How do you steal a non-property?

Because legitimate possession and control is not private property.  I mean if you want to call it property, fine.  It's just semantics at that point.  Everyone believes there should be some kind of legitimate possession and control.  I don't support, in any way, the monopoly status, sole executor, of "private property," ie capitalist property.

What % private property rights do you support, which ones exactly, and why those at the exclusion of the rest? 

I think "property" ie "legitimized possession and control" (if we're going to define it that way) should remain firmly in the hands of the community at large, mostly resting with the people actually engaged in productivity.  I don't support capitalist property for the same reasons I don't support monarchy and bureacratic dictatorship.  I don't trust the benevolence of dictators, find the system to be highly unstable, and anti-thetical to true human freedom (ie, ability to functionally pursue one's desires).  I find democracy to be better at maintaining society and providing an atmosphere for progress, even Republican democracy, than any kind of tyranny.

 

I am trying to be honest, regardless of what any oponents may say about me.  I have never once deliberately tried to misconstrue an argument or lie in any way.  If I have been dishonest, and you can prove it, I apologize.  

In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!

~Peter Kropotkin

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,922 Posts
Points 79,590

Laotzu del Zinn:

Buzz Killington:

Laotzu Del Zinn:

That's a pretty tiny gun.  You sure you want to go down this road? wink

Do you have a bigger one?

 

Are you sure you want to find out?

See what I mean, AuctionGuy?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 5 of 8 (114 items) « First ... < Previous 3 4 5 6 7 Next > ... Last » | RSS