35 ms·
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 exploiti
by sudosysgen 5y 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 5y 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 5y agoNo 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.
- codeflo 5y agoAs I said, transportation is a red herring, trade is mostly not about that. And just so I have this straight: you dispute the claim that Marxists think trade is not beneficial, and argue that they instead think it’s an inefficiency.