4 ms·

The Marxian response, although unpopular, is the rate of exploitation has increased. For Marx, technological development leads to more constant capital versus m

by ue_ 9y ago

The Marxian response, although unpopular, is the rate of exploitation has increased. For Marx, technological development leads to more constant capital versus moving capital (i.e more machinery and tools of production) being employed which means that there is a drop in demand for labour-power; while the total value inputs and outputs are identical, only the composition of the value has changed. The falling demand for labour-power means that labour has less of a negotiating place at the table which can lead to real wages decreasing. (Edit: Why are my comments receiving instant downvotes within less than a minute of posting? Who exactly is doing this, without explanation, and more importantly why?)

mbillie1 9y ago
Because it's HN, where opinions other than "hooray libertarian technocracy" are frowned upon.
- ue_ 9y ago
  I know what you mean, but I wasn't even espousing an opinion here; I was offering the view of a particular school of economics which has found a recent resurgance in academia from names like Anwar Shaikh and Richard Wolff. I simply can't think what would mean that someone comes along, reads my comment, for whatever reason disagrees with the fact (not the view, as there is very little view in my comment) and then clicks the downvote button. I'm sure I've read that dang has said that downvotes shouldn't be used to mark opinions you disagree with - yet here we are. I would really appreciate explanations, surely this is not above those people who have 500 karma - like I am, they are entrusted with extra powers over the content on the website; perhaps if they behave in such a way antithetical to the idea of Hacker News (that of sharing strangely interesting ideas and perspectives) perhaps they should not have that ability.
  - dang 9y ago
    > dang has said that downvotes shouldn't be used to mark opinions you disagree with I didn't say that. People think this, mainly because they hear it from other people who think this, but it has never been the policy on HN.
- dang 9y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15307915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15307915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13110004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13110004
Helloworldboy 9y ago
too bad Marxian policies stifle innovation by providing no incentive to pursue it.
- ue_ 9y ago
  > too bad Marxian policies stifle innovation by providing no incentive to pursue it. There are two things I can immediately identify as being incorrect about your comment: 1. There are no Marxian policies. Marxism is a method of analysis originating in political economy but spreading as wide as literature and geography. Marxists don't hold any power to implement any policy, and their policy isn't within capitalism. 2. The argument that under Communism or Socialism there would be no incentive to pursue innovation is mostly baseless and ignores the fact that many inventors and the greatest innovators and indeed the pioneers of our societies worked without hope of the reward, they worked out of their passion, or the desire for credit, or to provide a better life for themselves of their family. Is this not the core of the hacker ethos? In fact, plenty of innovation occurs within the open source community from people who expect no repayment for their effors. And this is of course assuming that people are not rewarded from their efforts under Communism. This is a false assumption you have made.
  - Helloworldboy 9y ago
    1. No true Scotsman 2. Bullshit, even the reasons you provide are rooted in monetary incentive, e.g. how does one provide a better life for ones family? You give a nice example in Open Source at least, but tell me, do you think the self-motivated hackers can create enough value by themselves to support the vast majority of society leeching off UBI? At $1000 per month per American you're looking at well over $3,000,000,000,000 per year. Sure would suck to be one of those motivated individuals having your labor exploited like that.
    - ue_ 9y ago
      > 1. No true Scotsman Have you heard of the "fallacy fallacy"? The idea that calling out a fallacy merely invalidates the whole argument. Please explain how I have made the fallacy. >to support the vast majority of society leeching off UBI I'm not a proponent of UBI. >At $1000 per month per American you're looking at well over $3,000,000,000,000 per year. Although I'm not proposing that everyone be given $1000/mo (I'm arguing for Socialism, not charity!) the reason why you say it is so infeasible is firstly because (i) you regard $1000 as "basic income" (ii) you don't think this amount is already paid to the working class as a whole. If the companies can collectively afford to pay people wages, then it would follow that an economy in which the companies have been replaced by a central organ would also be able to pay the same wages. $1000 is well below the median wage in the US (around $3100) which leads me to believe that Americans (by this I mean American workers) are are already collectively paid more than $3,000,000,000,000 per year. So why exactly is this number infeasible? It's already being paid, just by many entities instead of one.
alexasmyths 9y ago
I don't think what you said is controversial, it's sound. Marx's observations were mostly sound, and I think, not inconsistent with Adam Smith. It's his solutions that were crazy-balls. Ultimately, all things being equal, tech that makes companies more efficient will drop employment and wages. 'All things' are never equal though :). We should consider the fact that while modern countries are going anywhere fast - 100's of millions of people are coming out of abject poverty. That's often overlooked.
- ue_ 9y ago
  >100's of millions of people are coming out of abject poverty. That's often overlooked. I very much agree. People on my side of the political spectrum often dismiss how much good capitalism has done to people, especially those in improvished countries, though it's important to note that even despite these improvements, Marx campaigned for Socialism - not beacuse the improvements were useless, but because there is more to a mode of production than lifting people out of poverty - we must also question the social, psychological and moral aspects of the way in which people live; while nobody disagrees that the standard of living has increased, whether the quality of life is the best that it can be, or that it should be, is a very hot topic and the Frankfurt School in particular hads taken it upon itself to examine this. I made a comment[0] yesterday relating my problems with capitalism, and partly they are the reason I am a Socialist; perhaps we may find some agreement in the diagnoses of the problems but not the solutions, being as "crazy-ball" as you put them. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15299592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15299592

by ue_ 9y ago

mbillie1 9y ago

Because it's HN, where opinions other than "hooray libertarian technocracy" are frowned upon.

ue_ 9y ago
I know what you mean, but I wasn't even espousing an opinion here; I was offering the view of a particular school of economics which has found a recent resurgance in academia from names like Anwar Shaikh and Richard Wolff. I simply can't think what would mean that someone comes along, reads my comment, for whatever reason disagrees with the fact (not the view, as there is very little view in my comment) and then clicks the downvote button. I'm sure I've read that dang has said that downvotes shouldn't be used to mark opinions you disagree with - yet here we are. I would really appreciate explanations, surely this is not above those people who have 500 karma - like I am, they are entrusted with extra powers over the content on the website; perhaps if they behave in such a way antithetical to the idea of Hacker News (that of sharing strangely interesting ideas and perspectives) perhaps they should not have that ability.
- dang 9y ago
  > dang has said that downvotes shouldn't be used to mark opinions you disagree with I didn't say that. People think this, mainly because they hear it from other people who think this, but it has never been the policy on HN.
dang 9y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15307915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15307915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13110004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13110004

Helloworldboy 9y ago

too bad Marxian policies stifle innovation by providing no incentive to pursue it.

ue_ 9y ago
> too bad Marxian policies stifle innovation by providing no incentive to pursue it. There are two things I can immediately identify as being incorrect about your comment: 1. There are no Marxian policies. Marxism is a method of analysis originating in political economy but spreading as wide as literature and geography. Marxists don't hold any power to implement any policy, and their policy isn't within capitalism. 2. The argument that under Communism or Socialism there would be no incentive to pursue innovation is mostly baseless and ignores the fact that many inventors and the greatest innovators and indeed the pioneers of our societies worked without hope of the reward, they worked out of their passion, or the desire for credit, or to provide a better life for themselves of their family. Is this not the core of the hacker ethos? In fact, plenty of innovation occurs within the open source community from people who expect no repayment for their effors. And this is of course assuming that people are not rewarded from their efforts under Communism. This is a false assumption you have made.
- Helloworldboy 9y ago
  1. No true Scotsman 2. Bullshit, even the reasons you provide are rooted in monetary incentive, e.g. how does one provide a better life for ones family? You give a nice example in Open Source at least, but tell me, do you think the self-motivated hackers can create enough value by themselves to support the vast majority of society leeching off UBI? At $1000 per month per American you're looking at well over $3,000,000,000,000 per year. Sure would suck to be one of those motivated individuals having your labor exploited like that.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    > 1. No true Scotsman Have you heard of the "fallacy fallacy"? The idea that calling out a fallacy merely invalidates the whole argument. Please explain how I have made the fallacy. >to support the vast majority of society leeching off UBI I'm not a proponent of UBI. >At $1000 per month per American you're looking at well over $3,000,000,000,000 per year. Although I'm not proposing that everyone be given $1000/mo (I'm arguing for Socialism, not charity!) the reason why you say it is so infeasible is firstly because (i) you regard $1000 as "basic income" (ii) you don't think this amount is already paid to the working class as a whole. If the companies can collectively afford to pay people wages, then it would follow that an economy in which the companies have been replaced by a central organ would also be able to pay the same wages. $1000 is well below the median wage in the US (around $3100) which leads me to believe that Americans (by this I mean American workers) are are already collectively paid more than $3,000,000,000,000 per year. So why exactly is this number infeasible? It's already being paid, just by many entities instead of one.

alexasmyths 9y ago

I don't think what you said is controversial, it's sound. Marx's observations were mostly sound, and I think, not inconsistent with Adam Smith. It's his solutions that were crazy-balls. Ultimately, all things being equal, tech that makes companies more efficient will drop employment and wages. 'All things' are never equal though :). We should consider the fact that while modern countries are going anywhere fast - 100's of millions of people are coming out of abject poverty. That's often overlooked.

ue_ 9y ago
>100's of millions of people are coming out of abject poverty. That's often overlooked. I very much agree. People on my side of the political spectrum often dismiss how much good capitalism has done to people, especially those in improvished countries, though it's important to note that even despite these improvements, Marx campaigned for Socialism - not beacuse the improvements were useless, but because there is more to a mode of production than lifting people out of poverty - we must also question the social, psychological and moral aspects of the way in which people live; while nobody disagrees that the standard of living has increased, whether the quality of life is the best that it can be, or that it should be, is a very hot topic and the Frankfurt School in particular hads taken it upon itself to examine this. I made a comment[0] yesterday relating my problems with capitalism, and partly they are the reason I am a Socialist; perhaps we may find some agreement in the diagnoses of the problems but not the solutions, being as "crazy-ball" as you put them. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15299592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15299592