3 ms·

Marxist exploitation occurs in the labour relation - it isn't really about consumers. The thing he was referring to was the price mechanism, for which Marxists

by hkt 5y ago

Marxist exploitation occurs in the labour relation - it isn't really about consumers. The thing he was referring to was the price mechanism, for which Marxists have entertained quite a few alternatives based on the use value, labour costs to produce (labour value) etc. Re CBDC, he's referring to current accounts. There is a big debate at the Bank of England about how to offer these accounts via intermediaries, the idea being that they will add value in some way. The idea of the bank offering basic (read: deliberately rubbish) accounts vs not offering then at all is a key part of that debate. Underwriting for loans is different, but it is a fair thing to say that most banks don't bother investing in SMEs or the real economy more broadly. The fact is, banks lend to virtually risk free borrowers in the form of mortgages - the risks being mitigated by persistent property price inflation. As such, why charge above the base rate? It doesn't seem as though he is advocating replacing the lending function of banks, though in the broad sense I'd guess he would prefer savings and loan cooperatives like building societies and credit unions.

codeflo 5y ago
Since all labourers necessarily are consumers, a point that Marx hits home repeatedly, the question whether labour prices are too low or consumer prices too high is irrelevant, they are mathematically equivalent.
- hkt 5y ago
  They aren't - that's the point Marx makes in describing the idea of alienation from the fruits of one's labour. Because labour is commodified, the rate of pay does not relate to the value at the point of consumption - the difference between the price of the labour (eg labour value) and the price paid (exchange value) is profit, which is generally quite well known to be what the capitalists are in it for..! To put it more clearly: if I create one unit of value a day, it follows that for a profit to be accrued, it is not possible for me to be paid one unit of value. I'll be paid less. This is why the labour share of national income is still very important to some on the left, and it is the natural flip side to the idea of value add.

by hkt 5y ago

codeflo 5y ago

Since all labourers necessarily are consumers, a point that Marx hits home repeatedly, the question whether labour prices are too low or consumer prices too high is irrelevant, they are mathematically equivalent.

hkt 5y ago
They aren't - that's the point Marx makes in describing the idea of alienation from the fruits of one's labour. Because labour is commodified, the rate of pay does not relate to the value at the point of consumption - the difference between the price of the labour (eg labour value) and the price paid (exchange value) is profit, which is generally quite well known to be what the capitalists are in it for..! To put it more clearly: if I create one unit of value a day, it follows that for a profit to be accrued, it is not possible for me to be paid one unit of value. I'll be paid less. This is why the labour share of national income is still very important to some on the left, and it is the natural flip side to the idea of value add.