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 50 Contributor
Male
1,899 Posts
Points 37,230

In response to Clayton's hypothesis I  am making no claims.  I am asking your or him, or somebody, to source and verify their claims.
 

I am also under no responsiblity to tel you Im not responding to your argument, tho I plan on doing so when I can. I haven't read all of your latest response yet, but I will tomorow perhaps.

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
2,679 Posts
Points 45,110

In response to Clayton's hypothesis I  am making no claims.  I am asking your or him, or somebody, to source and verify their claims.

You have stipulated to some of Clayton's claims (e.g. wolves have disputes), yet you still said you required a source for this claim.  The rest of Clayton's claims are logically true (e.g. there was a time before law, the obvious case of when there was no life on earth).  Many of his premises, such as "[i]f we go far enough back in our evolutionary ancestry, we reach a point where our ancestors were not yet verbal", are obviously true if you subsribe to evolution as the origin of species.  Of course, perhaps you are a creationist, Laotzu, in which case I can understand your hesitation to take it as a premise.  But, seeing as it is the norm in science is that species evolved and were not placed here as is, his premise is derived logically from that, and there should be no need to cite Darwin or anyone else, as it is a commonly known and understood to be true.

What is happening here is that there are claims that are logically true, but you refuse to have any discussion about them because of some nonsense notion that unless there is verification, there can be no discussion.

You have shown repeatedly that you do not understand the language of logic.  You make categorical statements, but then later claim that they are not what you meant.  You repeatedly straw man the Libertarian argument (e.g. not making a distinction between the Libertarian notions of just and unjust property).  And of course you have accused me of trolling when it is you are troll (e.g. you stipulate to the fact that wolves have disputes, but if Clayton mentions it in his article, he must provide evidence).

That you have no real grasp of deductive logic, which is the tool of all rational discourse, tells me that there can be no further discussion between us.  It's been fun, but until you take the time to learn some basic logic and consistency, I really don't see how we can continue the debate.

-gotlucky

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

You would think when someone says "my limited knowledge tells me" that they are admitting that they don't know fully, ie it is implied that I am NOT making a categorical statement, rather a statement of doubt.

 

I'm sorry you don't understand context.  

 

Not to mention that I brought up sourcing and verification in regards to his entire argument at first.  Then you wanted me to get more specific.  So I just went through, found everywhere I could where he made an empirical claim, and said we can verify that.  In no way is me saying "we can verify that" me saying "I disagree."  Is that really that hard to understand?

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

Are you saying that there was never a time before law

I'm not the one who made this claim, and the onus is not upon me to provide evidence for it.  I don't care how obvious you think it sounds.  Do you think it would make in a serious scholarly journal if you provided an article with 4 sources?

Are you saying that it is false that "[i]f we go far enough back in our evolutionary ancestry, we reach a point where our ancestors were not yet verbal"?

Asking someone to source their claims does not mean you disagree with it.  You just want to see what their methodology is for making them.

Are you saying that it is false that "[s]ince the ability to speak and engage in complex, rational argument is a precondition for law, these ancestors could not have had law"

I didn't write the hypothesis and it is not my job to verify that claim.

I just cut out the rest because it's going to keep going down the same road; the same position I took from the beginning.  I said I cannot speak to his hypothesis because I don't have the actual historical knowledge to verify his claims.  

 

Perhaps you are just trolling me.  Are you really saying that disputes don't occur between other animals?  Really?  Wolves don't have disputes?  Bonobos don't have disputes?  You even brought up bonobos earlier in the thread, because of the way they commonly resolve their disputes...it seems like you are trolling here

In what universe does asking for a source mean you oppose the claim?  (Is this why rightists think there's a "leftist bias" in university?)

Many of his claims are true with easy observation,such as disputes occuring between other animals

Then it should be just as easy to source.

 Many of his claims are logically true - in other words, there is no other logical possibility.

Logic alone does not establish truth, and many things that are true can appear on their face as wildly illogical until further study is done.

 

An example: homo sapiens did not evolve with language already existing.

This!  This can be verified and many anthropologists would disagree with you.  Many anthros see ample evidence for the existence of language in pre-sapiens.  Now, I understand that this doesn't change the large point. It's just a look at the methodology of the hypothesis.

 It had to be developed socially.  When you cast doubt upon his premise, you are saying that it is logically possible for language to have been created the very same moment the first homo sapien was born.

Or in pre sapiens...

No.  It is supposed to mean you have very limited knowledge, because the claim that followed your statement was obviously false.  You made a categorical statement that was not true.  

(See above, it wasn't contextually a categorical statement, and I find it disengenous for you to suggest it was.  Anybody should have been able to realize, the moment I said "my limited knowledge" means I was just doubting his claim, not offering one of my own) Prove it's not true.

No.  You did not say often.

This entire diversion is pointless.  This is why I took such a long break from posting here.  You can't say 6 words without it turning into a 3 week long debate over semantics...

 I think you should clean up your arguments, because the argument you made was a categorical argument.  

I didn't make an argument! I casted doubt upon his claim.  I'm sorry you don't understand context.

More specifically, your argument was modus ponens (if p, then q), and your premises were categorical ("if people got into unsettleable disputes like this, that the people just left the band and moved in with another").  Your statement was "if people" not "if some people", and in this particular context, there is no other way to interpret it as anything other than a categorical statement.

I think the placing of "my limited knowledge tells me" would have given cause to interpret it as "I don't know if that's true."  Not "my limited knowledge tells me I must obviously be right."  Why would I say my knowledge is limited if I thought I was right?!

Your argument was wrong, and therefore your refutation of Clayton did not actually refute him

I didn't refute him, nor try to.  I casted doubt upon his methodolgy.

Well, actually, you did claim it.  You said, "And since he says this is a "crucial point" it means that if he is wrong about this, a large chunk of his thoery falls flat on its face."  You trolling me again

... and I quote... "IF!" "IF" this is wrong a large chunk falls on its face.  Where did I say it IS wrong. (I'm sorry for the exclamations, but I'm having a bout of insomnia, and a little peeved...)

You're just trolling here. 

If that's what you have to tell yourself to think you're "winning" here...

 You full well know that wolves have disputes.

I do.  Yet if it's so obvious, it should be easy to source. Now you show me where I claimed they don't.

 Earlier in this thread you specifically went on about how wolves do have disputes because they have a proper hierarchy.  There is no need to source every fucking point in a logical argument, especially something that is common knowledge.  

If you remember correctly I said "Source (I'm sure they do)."  I don't know where you got the idea that me asking for a source is me saying your claim is incorrect.  Have you ever been to university? 

Even in proper peer reviewed journals, articles don't source every point.

I'm pretty sure they source every empirical claim... at least most of the ones I have read do, even on points that should be general knowledge for undergrads, let alone doctorates...

 If you have specific issues with his points, feel free to raise them.  But don't start questioning something that you have already admitted to being the case.  Unless, of course, you actually do not believe that wolves have disputes...but then you would be flip flopping.

There is nothing wrong, nothing, with asking someone to source their verifiable claims... and there is everything wrong with someone refusing to do so, even if the claim should be obvious.  Again, I have no reason to believe your claims, even if they should be obvious, if you give me no evidence of them.

So are you disputing that they had a bully problem?

In what universe does asking for a source = saying one is wrong?!

 You are making the claim that all societies before, perhaps, 10,000 years ago never had at least one individual (and of course the possibility for several individuals) assert his will over a group of other humans?

In what universe is asking for a source making a counterclaim?!

Straw manning again, huh?  Sure.  The wholesale slaughter of Canaan did make Israel the property of the Israelites.  That did not make it just property.  

So you are saying nobody was under any obligation to respect their claims, or they were?  You said "Just what, exactly, do you think dispute resolution is?  Armies taking over is one method of dispute resolution.)"  Earlier I said "Did property "rights" emerge from dispute resolution, or did they emerge from armies making claims to territory?"  Earlier than that I asked why anyone should respect property claims, you replied to have a functioning society.  

So, how am I wrong in concluding that (whether or not it is just, which is subjective) people should respect Isreal's claim, because it is a property claim which emerged from dispute resolution, and we have to respect property claims which emerge from dispute resolution in order to have a functioning society?!  Christ...

But sure, considering the definition of property, it did in fact become the Israelites' property, but it would have been unjust property.  Now, why should anyone have respected that claim?  Maybe it would be prudent to respect the claim of the strongest, but I think you are just trying to ridicule a logical argument instead of provide an actual logical reason it is false.  Just more trolling here

Ya, it's "trolling" to take your logic to its conclusion.

Show you evidence of what?  It's an either/or.  The premises imply the conclusion.  Either there was a bully originally in a society, and therefore statutory law, or there was no bully originally in a society, and there was customary law.  Unless you would like to demonstrate logically why this isn't the case..

Source that there WAS a bully problem.  If it's so obvious, why is it so hard?

Dispute resolution is not law.  Law is what results from dispute resolution. Property is a result of dispute resolution.  

I'm sorry, maybe you should be more clear in pointing out that law and property, tho both arising from dispute resolution, are not the same thing, and that not all dispute resolutions develop into property or law.  

Are you trolling me here again?  We've been over this...and I've said the same thing before..

And yet you still keep making the claim that "Law IS what results" as if all dispute resolution is law/property.  Now I know that's not what you mean, from your context.  So I keep pointing out that property and law are "specific types" of dispute resolution, as is murder.

No, it does not help to say that the dispute resolution of wolves is law.  I've provided definitions of law, and I do not believe that those definitions allow for the behavior of wolves to be included in law.

You mean like this: "the definition of law;it does provide alternatives to settling disputes with further violence."  Ya, so does wolvish posturing.  Maybe you need to be more clear... 

Typically when I purposely don't respond to someone's points, I make a point of stating why.

And I'm not you.  My bad.

 Not doing so makes it seem like you are cherrypicking your opponent's points and have no intention of responding.

Maybe it would if I wasn't actually responding to you, but to Clayton through you as his proxy.  Notice that other times I have, in fact, popped in just to say I will respond later.

 Now, can you demonstrate to me why asking you if I should take it as an implicit concession means that I am here to "win the debate?

Why else would my not responding be a concession?  If I think you're right about something, I will say "you're right," or "fair enough" or something like that.  

You really need to work on your logic.  You make categorical statements only to back out of them later,

I don't.

but you have done this many times in this thread, not just in this last post. 

I have not.  

 You seem to be straw manning and actually trolling at some points.

You're seeing something that isn't happening.

 Specifically, stating earlier in the thread that wolves have disputes, and then questioning Clayton when he states it too...This is just trolling, pure and simple

Maybe it would be if I wasn't specifically asking for a source, rather than refuting his claim.

I'm actually interested in debating, but you are really making it hard when you answer me vaguely often (and it seems purposely).  It is also difficult when you bring up points that we have already dealt with, for instance not understanding that Libertarians have the concepts of just and unjust property, and then pretending like we don't have these concepts when it suits you (e.g. Canaanites and Iraelites).

I act like they don't make sense, not that you don't have them.

Please, clean up your act.

I would ask you to do the same.

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

It seemed like you were referring to a nationwide economic overproduction, and not the profit and loss motive

Worldwide capitalist economies are based on the profit and loss motive, which is the cause of overproduction.  Again, ABCT doesn't state that recessions will end if we get rid of central banks and/or FRB.  It states that central banks and FRB exacerbate recessions and prolong them.

Maintain market demand for what?  Even with the state sucking the life out of the economy, there is still market demand. 

It is in the interests of stock owners to supress wages, because that is the easiest way to lower costs (or at least is without worker protection laws).  True?  (I actually did make a claim here.  I can offer Adam Smith as my source; wealth of nations chapter 4 book 1 I think... somewhere in book 1)  Can capitalists suppress wages and still maintain a demand for their products as a whole in a free market system?  I don't know the answer to this.  I don't think you do either.  We can both theorize either way.  Perhaps upgrades in productivity will increase wages overall through time.  Perhaps it won't.  Perhaps there is a reason capitalists have often seen no problem in running to the government to save their failing industries.

Quite simply, someone has to police.  There has to be a market in law and the services that enforce it.  People do have disputes.  There must be a way for those disputes to be resolved.  Police are just one aspect of the market in law, and they are a necessary aspect of it.  Libertarians just call the police in an ancap society PDA's to establish a difference between ancap police and statist police

True.  And my point was that I trust private mercenaries less than statist mercenaries.  I would prefer if police were actually members of their communities.  I would almost fully support a "rotating roles" type of community involvement with policing.  But I'm not so utopian as to suggest that what I think would work will actually work. 

You are dodging here.  Please provide which premises you have even the slightest doubt about whether they correspond to reality or not.

I was going to delete this bc I have already responded.  But I don't want to be accused of dismissing you, so, see above.

Okay, but do you believe there is an alternative to dispute resolution (i.e. law) for private property to arise?

What a ridiculous question.  Ok, so me killing off the disputers is a resolution, and if I codify it, it is law.  So this leaves in place both peaceful and coercive disputes of resolution... so you're basically asking me "do you think property developed through people doing things."  Yes, property developed through people doing things, both peaceful and coercive.  Yes, I believe that.

Look, deductive logic is not pseudoscience.  Math is not pseudoscience

It is if you claim math alone proves the truth value of your claims.  For example Nassim Haramein.

 Whether or not logic and math are sciences is up for debate,

Alone, they are not.

but they do not meet the criteria for pseudoscience.

No, they don't.  But it is pseudo-science to claim deduction alone can verify truth.

 You can doubt things all you want.  But seeing as you have stated that his argument is valid, you need to point to which premises you have doubts about.  I don't want a generic "oh it's all his premises".  Just name even one.

Don't want to be accused of dismissal, so see above.

I hope that you can now see the folly of trying to create a system based on denying everyone a claim to something that they own.

No, I don't.  I'm not even sure that's what I'm proposing... it's not denying "everyone."  In fact, it is affirming "everyone" has a claim to (nearly) everything.  It is denying "anyone" that claim, not everyone.

There is no need for most serious scholars to bring up human nature, because for most things it is irrelevant.  But if "serious" economic scholars want to deny the action axiom, then they really aren't that "serious".  

And yet most scholars consider praxeology to not be serious for that exact reason...

Speaking of unverifiable claims, that's a good one.  So why can you make these claims, but heaven forbid Clayton make claims?

See: A People's History of the World

and it's further readings, just off the top of my head

http://www.marxists.org/archive/harman/1999/history/reading.htm

 

How long have you been on these forums and you have no idea what acting in one's own self-interest means?  When you act, you are demonstrating your preference for that choice above all other possibilites.  You had a choice when your mother made you clean the house.  You could have refused.  You chose to clean the house because it was in your self-interest to do so.  You may not have liked cleaning the house, but this in no way contradicts what I said.

Knowing what it means and not understanding it because it's nonsense are two different things.  Only a person mired in abstract hypothesis, devoid of any reality, would claim cleaning the house was what I felt was in my self-interest.  It was, to me, in my mother's interest, whether I decided to do it or not.  You basically have to define self interest as "whatever you do" to make this claim.  This would also suggest that slaves remained slaves because it was in their self-interest... and if you make that claim you shouldn't be surprised if someone laughs in your face.

No kidding.  But this in no way addresses the manner in which utilitarianism is arbitrary.  There is no way to know who "needs" what more.  It is arbitrary to say who "needs" what more than someone else.  Nice dodge.

There is a way to at least get close; democracy (not republicanism, which is a political way of protecting democracy ["people power"].  This definition I am using is not mainstream, it is etymological.

Ah yes, democracy, the tyranny of the majority.  Please explain how democratically deciding something is not willy nilly.

Because the tyranny of the minority is any better.  Simply put, if it doesn't protect the individual to a reasonable extent, it isn't people power (people is just an abstraction of multiple persons), and so it isn't democracy.

Democracy (which can be a 51/50 vote, an 85/15 vote, a bill of rights, or a community action group, etc) works loosely on a 1 man 1 incriment of power (vote if you will) [as opposed to say a market which works on a 1 man with theoretically unlimited incriments of power].  It is arbitrary, in the sense that ethics and law are arbitrary.  But it is less arbitrary than other systems because the balance of power is equalized; it is better able to reflect actual demand, rather than say economic demand

"But need is not effective economic demand; effective economic demand requires both need and corresponding purchasing power" ~Hazlitt

What do you mean by "working for people"?  Obviously, many slaves did in fact accept their being a slave, as most did not try to escape.  Was slavery "working" for them?  And exactly is society by necessity utilitarian?  How did Nazi Germany maximize happiness for people over the

Maximizing happienss as an ultimate end is idealist, not utilitarian.  All a society must do is "work for people" enough to stave off revolt.  This sytem we are in, so far, is working.  Although there are pockets of resistance, enough people with enough power are content.  Yes, this means slavery was "working for" society.  It doesn't mean slavery was good for slaves, or it is in their self-interest.  We can analyze it on a case-by-case basis, and for sure we will find people it is not working for.  Yet as an abstract whole, it is working.

There is no need to overlook this point. People claim winter and summer houses now.  But if the descenants don't have specific areas of land that they can point to now and say, "That was definitely our ancestors," then you cannot prove that they are the rightful owners.  Libertarianism only requires that they prove who the rightful owners are and what they are the rightful owners of.

Individually they can make no claims.  Only as (the descendants of) a tribe can they claim most of the entire northwest US.  You can study the period if you want.  It's pretty easy to see that, according to their customs, the US government had "cheated" (for lack of a better term) in giving away that territory to settlers.

But this is not what you were talking about.  You were saying that specifically in a free market system, that one could go murdering secretly and not be punished.  But that is the case with any system.  If you can't prove who did the murdering, then you don't know who did the murdering.  You have illucidated nothing.

Fair enough.  I didn't express myself correctly.  

So what?  What about the man that doesn't care about germs but does care about brushing his teeth?  Who are you to decide that "germs" trumph his wants and needs?

Germ based illness is a public health issue.

Well that isn't true.  You can have a rulerless society without the entire world being rulerless.  

Not for long, imo... tho I cannot prove this, and would not claim I could.

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: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,922 Posts
Points 79,590

Laotzu del Zinn:

No.  It is supposed to mean you have very limited knowledge, because the claim that followed your statement was obviously false.  You made a categorical statement that was not true.  

(See above, it wasn't contextually a categorical statement, and I find it disengenous for you to suggest it was.  Anybody should have been able to realize, the moment I said "my limited knowledge" means I was just doubting his claim, not offering one of my own) Prove it's not true.

What kind of nonsense is this? First you say you weren't making a categorical statement. But then you tell GotLucky to prove that your statement isn't true, which implies that was a categorical statement. Do you see the contradiction here? Do you see how you're trying to have your cake and eat it too? Just who do you think you're going to fool with this?

And you continue to act shocked (shocked!) when people keep berating you for inconsistency. I think we both know why they do. It's because you're inconsistent, and willfully so.

Edit: How's this for a source on wolf disputes? http://www.gorp.com/parks-guide/travel-ta-yellowstone-national-park-nature-sidwcmdev_115741.html

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

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

Asking someone to source thier claims is not a statement of disagreement, pure and simple.  This is getting outright ridiculous.

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

That completely ignores my point. Try again.

Oh and I thought you were never going to respond to me ever again. I guess that's yet another instance where you've been inconsistent.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

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