7 ms·

I'm not even sure what you're disagreeing with. I gave a direct quote, from the very article we're discussing, that Varoufakis directly attributes a price diffe

I'm not even sure what you're disagreeing with. I gave a direct quote, from the very article we're discussing, that Varoufakis directly attributes a price difference to "profit". You may believe that, but it contradicts all (non-Marxist) economic theory, which is the only thing I'm pointing out. In fact, I realize most Marxists never read Das Kapital, but Marx himself is very clear that he doesn't believe trade creates value: > Turn and twist then as we may, the fact remains unaltered. If equivalents are exchanged, no surplus-value results, and if non-equivalents are exchanged, still no surplus-value. Circulation, or the exchange of commodities, begets no value. Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch05.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch05.htm

dundarious 4y ago
I don't see how that quotation, or the preceding example Marx uses to illustrate it, backs up your strong claim that Marx thinks "no trade is ever beneficial to both sides". He's making an economic argument about a certain notion of value. It's not a nihilistic "woe is everything" argument about how there's no point or no ethical way to do any kind of trade. And at least one aspect of his argument is also uncontroversial in modern economics. Take the metric of GDP, and the example of a neighborhood of a ring of 5 houses, each with a mother and child. If mother 1 pays mother 2 for day care to raise child 1, and so on in a circle, then each mother is paying and being paid the same amount to raise a child (just not their own), and each child is being cared for. There is no economic benefit to this shuffling arrangement (in practice there would be downsides like taxes, but ignore all that), however GDP is increased by 5 times the cost to care for a child. But nothing is profited and nothing is lost, and the system cares for no more/fewer children. So while I'm no expert (I'm not a Marxist and I've barely read any Marx or other political economists in their source works), but from what I know, such a strong claim isn't justified, and it reads like a misunderstanding based on the use of "value", which Marx often though not always makes pains to disentangle from notions of exchange value, use value, sometimes ethical and intellectual value (of ideas, etc.), and probably more besides.
sudosysgen 4y ago
You mixed up two things. You said he believes no one can make money without exploiting, which is false. If you said no one can extract a profit without exploiting was his view, you would be accurate. >In fact, I realize most Marxists never read Das Kapital, but Marx himself is very clear that he doesn't believe trade creates value: >> Turn and twist then as we may, the fact remains unaltered. If equivalents are exchanged, no surplus-value results, and if non-equivalents are exchanged, still no surplus-value. Circulation, or the exchange of commodities, begets no value. As I have said before, Marxists make a difference between different types of value. A better distribution of goods in the Marxist framework (implemented by a mutually beneficial trade of goods) allows more use-value to be realized. It's easy to get confused - Marx never says that trade is entirely useless or that there is no mutually beneficial trade possible. All he says is that exchange of objects of equivalent value does not create any surplus, which is true. It can, in some cases, allow the use-value to be better realized, in which case it is mutually beneficial. It's absolutely crucial to keep in mind the multiple different definitions of value if you want to engage with such arguments.
- codeflo 4y ago
  > All he says is that exchange of objects of equivalent value does not create any surplus, which is true. I know Marx says that, and it’s false. Trade can raise both utility and price. The reason is that price is highly context dependent; a shoe in a shoe shop is worth more than a shoe in a shoe factory. And it’s not the “labour of transportation” that makes it so, only part of that is location: Having a selection of products to choose from makes each individual one worth more, because you know you get to pick the one you want.
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    No one is debating that trade can increase price and personal utility. The point of contention is that trade cannot create surplus value. Beyond the labour of transportation, it is only realising the use value of the good. Nothing is being produced, and indeed an economy where very little trade beyond transportatio is necessary is a better one, because it is simply and inefficiency.

dundarious 4y ago

I don't see how that quotation, or the preceding example Marx uses to illustrate it, backs up your strong claim that Marx thinks "no trade is ever beneficial to both sides". He's making an economic argument about a certain notion of value. It's not a nihilistic "woe is everything" argument about how there's no point or no ethical way to do any kind of trade. And at least one aspect of his argument is also uncontroversial in modern economics. Take the metric of GDP, and the example of a neighborhood of a ring of 5 houses, each with a mother and child. If mother 1 pays mother 2 for day care to raise child 1, and so on in a circle, then each mother is paying and being paid the same amount to raise a child (just not their own), and each child is being cared for. There is no economic benefit to this shuffling arrangement (in practice there would be downsides like taxes, but ignore all that), however GDP is increased by 5 times the cost to care for a child. But nothing is profited and nothing is lost, and the system cares for no more/fewer children. So while I'm no expert (I'm not a Marxist and I've barely read any Marx or other political economists in their source works), but from what I know, such a strong claim isn't justified, and it reads like a misunderstanding based on the use of "value", which Marx often though not always makes pains to disentangle from notions of exchange value, use value, sometimes ethical and intellectual value (of ideas, etc.), and probably more besides.

sudosysgen 4y ago

You mixed up two things. You said he believes no one can make money without exploiting, which is false. If you said no one can extract a profit without exploiting was his view, you would be accurate. >In fact, I realize most Marxists never read Das Kapital, but Marx himself is very clear that he doesn't believe trade creates value: >> Turn and twist then as we may, the fact remains unaltered. If equivalents are exchanged, no surplus-value results, and if non-equivalents are exchanged, still no surplus-value. Circulation, or the exchange of commodities, begets no value. As I have said before, Marxists make a difference between different types of value. A better distribution of goods in the Marxist framework (implemented by a mutually beneficial trade of goods) allows more use-value to be realized. It's easy to get confused - Marx never says that trade is entirely useless or that there is no mutually beneficial trade possible. All he says is that exchange of objects of equivalent value does not create any surplus, which is true. It can, in some cases, allow the use-value to be better realized, in which case it is mutually beneficial. It's absolutely crucial to keep in mind the multiple different definitions of value if you want to engage with such arguments.

codeflo 4y ago
> All he says is that exchange of objects of equivalent value does not create any surplus, which is true. I know Marx says that, and it’s false. Trade can raise both utility and price. The reason is that price is highly context dependent; a shoe in a shoe shop is worth more than a shoe in a shoe factory. And it’s not the “labour of transportation” that makes it so, only part of that is location: Having a selection of products to choose from makes each individual one worth more, because you know you get to pick the one you want.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  No one is debating that trade can increase price and personal utility. The point of contention is that trade cannot create surplus value. Beyond the labour of transportation, it is only realising the use value of the good. Nothing is being produced, and indeed an economy where very little trade beyond transportatio is necessary is a better one, because it is simply and inefficiency.