General

Re: Ask a Marxist anything.

William — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 22:47:50 GMT

Locked, because this thread is old and the Marxist does not seem to be responding to any more questions, defeating the point of the thread. I will open this thread back up if the OP requests

Re: Ask a Marxist anything.

Kaz — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 22:45:35 GMT

I do not oppose just laissez-faire Capitalism, but all forms of Capital accumulation EG the M-C-M accumulation cycle, I oppose the existence of Exchange-value, and as such seek to abolish currency.

How would you expect society to communicate the trillion needs (manifesting as supply and demand) that occur on a daily basis, if not with a tool for measuring each against the others, as money is?

Max Weber identified socialism's most insurmountable failing as its inability to duplicate that efficiency of communication. The Central Planner cannot know how many shoes will be needed, nor how much leather will be needed for the shoes it does decide upon, et cetera.

So you end up with shoe shortages and surpluses (sometimes at the same time, because even shoes are more complex than any socialist appears to imagine), as well as starvation, pollution, et cetera.

So how will you fix this? What is the means by which the almost infinitely complex web of supply and demand is balanced, under a system with no money, and central planners?

Re: Ask a Marxist anything.

AnonLLF — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 22:38:10 GMT

FunkedUp:

"Dialectical materialism is integral to Marxist theory,"

No it's not.Analytical or neo-marxism?

Re: Ask a Marxist anything.

EmperorNero — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 22:26:28 GMT

SecurityCulture:
Ask a Markist anything.

How does putting the state in charge of everything lead to a stateless society?

Re: Ask a Marxist anything.

Justin Spahr-Summers — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 03:10:08 GMT

If an integrated debate system were to happen, it should have the ability to be able to nominate or otherwise cast a vote for the debater(s), assuming that such a debate were happening under similar circumstances (an "outsider" visits the Mises forum and sparks a debate).

Re: Ask a Marxist anything.

Blueline976 — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 00:53:00 GMT

A debate system integrated into the forums (whether unofficial where someone just posts a "debate me/this topic" thread and the first willing person to reply takes the challenge, or official in a debate.org sort of way) would do wonders to people with opposing views who want to answer questions or debate topics. Just a thought.

Re: Ask a Marxist anything.

filc — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:10:15 GMT

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.

Re: Ask a Marxist anything.

MaikU — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:05:48 GMT

SecurityCulture:
The price of a Commodity is determined by its price of production

SecurityCulture

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?

Re: Ask a Marxist anything.

Conza88 — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 17:16:26 GMT

"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!)

Re: Ask a Marxist anything.

DanielMuff — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 11:11:55 GMT

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.

Re: Ask a Marxist anything.

Conza88 — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 06:26:25 GMT

"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.

Property in Bodies

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

Re: Ask a Marxist anything.

Bert — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 06:01:36 GMT

Uh, is that sarcasm?

Re: Ask a Marxist anything.

krazy kaju — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 05:59:31 GMT

Bert: Please google "supply and demand."

Re: Ask a Marxist anything.

mediahasyou — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 05:58:44 GMT

Will the society you advocate produce less output than current output?

Re: Ask a Marxist anything.

Bert — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 05:52:44 GMT

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.

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.

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?

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?