7 ms·

I would say that Marx and labor theory of value are still relevant as mechanisms for understanding capitalism. According to Marx, Capitalism is a mode of econom

I would say that Marx and labor theory of value are still relevant as mechanisms for understanding capitalism. According to Marx, Capitalism is a mode of economics that has unleashed the productive forces, but its internal contradictions give rise to increasing crisises. There is a constant downward pressure on labor costs versus rising costs of living. Crisis has been averted multiple times, and the productive forces continue to be unleashed. To prevent total collapse, concessions like welfare have been made. However, there is a real possibility of potential growth being stifled by self interests of powerful economic actors. This bleeds out now into identity politics as people view the liberal system as incapable of providing the growth and future they thought would be delivered. Either unprivileged groups want to be paid high wages or the privileged groups want to protect their high wages from being cut down. This is a form of class warfare that isn't too different from what Marx observed in his days. This still is far away from achieving the socialist mode of production where the workers become the planner and rulers of the economy to further unleash the productive forces.

kingstoned 3y ago
[flagged]
- soulbadguy 3y ago
  Couldn't the same be said about capitalism and free market theory ?
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    Capitalism is not a scientific theory, and "free market theory" is not a thing that exists.
- gustavus 3y ago
  That's not quite right, there are several things Marx offerred that could be tested. Such as, the most capitalist countries would be the first to fall to communism. Except they didn't the only countries that have ever fallen to communism were Monarchies ruled by an absolute divine monarch. Or after a revolution, the institutions of religion and the state would wither away. Which Russia is getting close to going back to a sort of Theocratic-Facism, and the CCP may not be quite yet ready to dissolve. I could bust out my old copy of the communist manifesto to check any more predictions he made, but at the end of the day Marx did offer falsifiable theories, it's just that it turns out anywhere Marxism could be falsified it was. If only he hadn't tied it to something as concrete and objective as economics and instead something more relative and cultural.....
  - wesselbindt 3y ago
    Some questions: - Why are you mentioning Russia? You do realize they've been capitalist for 30 years now, and that it's transformation to a more fascist state happened in those decades? - Do you think Cuba was a monarchy, ruled by king Batista, before it fell to communism? > anywhere Marxism could be falsified it was Ironically, this is a falsifiable statement. One of the key predictions of Marx is that under capitalism, wealth and property would be concentrated in an increasingly smaller group over time. I would not consider that one as having been falsified. > I could bust out my old copy of the communist manifesto to check any more predictions he made That's not a great source for predictions, tbh. It's more of a pamphlet aimed at workers, not so much a theoretical analysis of capitalism or communism. In all fairness though, the books you'd have to read for those predictions are super long and dry, and honestly who has time for that?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Such as, the most capitalist countries would be the first to fall to communism He has so far been right in that, insofar as there is any progress in that direction, in that the progress from the capitalism Marx wrote about to the modern mixed economy in the advanced economies is an evolution toward communism implementing several of the elements of the program Marx laid out for the early stages of such a transition. The Leninist attempt to bypass market capitalism on the road to communism consistently, everywhere attempted, either got stuck in state capitalism durably, got stuck there until collapsing totally, or migrated from there toward market capitalism, failing entirely to bypass it on the road to communism. Marx was talking about where progress toward communism would happen, not where people calling themselves Communists would succeed in taking power and fail to make any more progress toward acheiving communism than, in the best cases, getting a bit closer to where thr capitalist economies of Marx’s time were starting from.
  - JPws_Prntr_Fngr 3y ago
    > the only countries that have ever fallen to communism were Monarchies ruled by an absolute divine monarch. If anyone is wondering why US/corporate empire spent so much blood & treasure, political capital, and moral high ground on sabotage & slaughter in places like Vietnam, Guatemala, and Indonesia - here's the answer. It was due to mortal fear that one of these third world socialist/communist popular movements might actually succeed. (That and plain old short-term business interests) See: The Jakarta Method, The Devils Chessboard, The Brothers, etc.
- kieselguhr_kid 3y ago
  It's a lot easier to argue against Marx than against Marxism, just as it's a lot easier to argue against Darwin than evolution. Marxism as a school of thought has evolved quite a bit since Marx, who any non-crank would admit was wrong about a host of things. Marxism is largely descriptive, and so many people claim that it cannot be falsified. But there are ways you could falsify Marxism: - Capitalism could mediate class conflict out of existence - Capitalism could grow indefinitely without producing business crises - Wages across the world could become roughly equal in terms of purchasing power, regardless of the country, without an economic crisis. Now, these would have to happen in the actually existing world, and as such I can see the resistance to labeling them as falsifiable. So how would you falsify orthodox economics?
legitster 3y ago
Marxism is kind of like the chiropracty of economics. Just because Marx can explain everything and point out contradictions doesn't mean they are true. QoL is still in an upward climb. Average lifetime working hours is still marching down. We've peaked out on literacy and child mortality and preventable diseases with available technology. You have to ignore 120 years of intellectual progress on economics to still want to apply labor theory of value to problems. There may be a day when we can achieve some semblance of a "socialist" mode of production - but I can almost assure you it will not be from people following Marx's flawed analysis. It will be from people who understand either classical or keynesian economics, or whatever new understanding come from it, and apply them towards actual functional policies.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - legitster 3y ago
    Are you arguing that Germany is not a capitalist country? I was collectively speaking about the capitalist world. > How can y'all be so damn certain you're the best in the world when five minutes worth of Googling is enough to completely destroy all your arguments?! Uhhhh, maybe read the comments a bit more clearly before jumping in. Do you always just jump in on random threads to say Americans are dumb?
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      > Are you arguing that Germany is not a capitalist country? I was collectively speaking about the capitalist world. Even then, assuming we're not just talking about the US, it's a stretch to say "we" peaked out. We have a lot to do before anyone can make that claim, the problem is that in most countries politicians have been bought off by rich elites to lower taxes and reduce public spending (which has been done especially to education as that's the easiest), so there is no tax base left to fund what needs to be done. > Uhhhh, maybe read the comments a bit more clearly before jumping in. Do you always just jump in on random threads to say Americans are dumb? Fair point, removed the rant.
kbutler 3y ago
[flagged]
- MarkMarine 3y ago
  [flagged]
- CrackerNews 3y ago
  I thought value wasn't price? The way to salvage labor theory is really to turn it into macroeconomics where the labor value is amortized, which does restrict it as an applicable theory.
- deciplex 3y ago
  > Labor theory of value is trivially provable wrong (daily fluctuating prices, loss of value because of introduction of better products, etc.). I think, at a minimum, you should understand what the Labor Theory of Value is, before claiming that it is trivial to prove it wrong.
  - kbutler 3y ago
    Labor Theory of Value: The value of a commodity can be objectively measured by the hours of socially necessary labor required to produce it. So the "value" of a commodity is fixed at the time of production. But what is "value"? It's not the utility ("use value"). It's not the market price, which changes over time. Marx and others try to map "value" to price (Transformation problem) and try to measure exploitation of workers using profits based on selling prices, so there's an attempt to consider this "value" as the correct, instrinsic worth of a commodity. Consider a brand-new in-the-box iPhone. It has a fixed labor-theory-value, yet its price and worth go down every year as new models come out. How does labor theory of value help to understand this? Mainstream economists had moved to a subjective value model even before Marx's death. See the "Marginal Revolution". This explains that the value of the old model iPhone is reduced because it is less useful than competing newer models, reducing the demand for the older model. Yet according to labor theory of value, its value is determined by its production. Thus "value" is best understood as a measure of a cost of production, not as a measure of the "worth" of a commodity. Wasteful labor? More cost, not more worth. Increased skill? Reduced labor cost to produce. Better tools/automation? Reduced labor, reduced cost. Where's the misunderstanding?
MarkMarine 3y ago
It seems the many of the only people who really read and understood Marx looked at it and said “well ok, I’m going to be one of the capitalists, and this is actually good.” There are actually planned economies in our system, Einstein would have been shocked by Walmart. I recommend “People’s Republic of Walmart” by Phillips and Rozworski if you want to read about it.
Natsu 3y ago
The labor theory of value is bogus, though. A doctor doing work on their own car and a mechanic diagnosing their own illness are both worse off than if they exchange their labor with each other, even if Marxist thought wants to equate their labors.

kingstoned 3y ago

[flagged]

soulbadguy 3y ago
Couldn't the same be said about capitalism and free market theory ?
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  Capitalism is not a scientific theory, and "free market theory" is not a thing that exists.
gustavus 3y ago
That's not quite right, there are several things Marx offerred that could be tested. Such as, the most capitalist countries would be the first to fall to communism. Except they didn't the only countries that have ever fallen to communism were Monarchies ruled by an absolute divine monarch. Or after a revolution, the institutions of religion and the state would wither away. Which Russia is getting close to going back to a sort of Theocratic-Facism, and the CCP may not be quite yet ready to dissolve. I could bust out my old copy of the communist manifesto to check any more predictions he made, but at the end of the day Marx did offer falsifiable theories, it's just that it turns out anywhere Marxism could be falsified it was. If only he hadn't tied it to something as concrete and objective as economics and instead something more relative and cultural.....
- wesselbindt 3y ago
  Some questions: - Why are you mentioning Russia? You do realize they've been capitalist for 30 years now, and that it's transformation to a more fascist state happened in those decades? - Do you think Cuba was a monarchy, ruled by king Batista, before it fell to communism? > anywhere Marxism could be falsified it was Ironically, this is a falsifiable statement. One of the key predictions of Marx is that under capitalism, wealth and property would be concentrated in an increasingly smaller group over time. I would not consider that one as having been falsified. > I could bust out my old copy of the communist manifesto to check any more predictions he made That's not a great source for predictions, tbh. It's more of a pamphlet aimed at workers, not so much a theoretical analysis of capitalism or communism. In all fairness though, the books you'd have to read for those predictions are super long and dry, and honestly who has time for that?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Such as, the most capitalist countries would be the first to fall to communism He has so far been right in that, insofar as there is any progress in that direction, in that the progress from the capitalism Marx wrote about to the modern mixed economy in the advanced economies is an evolution toward communism implementing several of the elements of the program Marx laid out for the early stages of such a transition. The Leninist attempt to bypass market capitalism on the road to communism consistently, everywhere attempted, either got stuck in state capitalism durably, got stuck there until collapsing totally, or migrated from there toward market capitalism, failing entirely to bypass it on the road to communism. Marx was talking about where progress toward communism would happen, not where people calling themselves Communists would succeed in taking power and fail to make any more progress toward acheiving communism than, in the best cases, getting a bit closer to where thr capitalist economies of Marx’s time were starting from.
- JPws_Prntr_Fngr 3y ago
  > the only countries that have ever fallen to communism were Monarchies ruled by an absolute divine monarch. If anyone is wondering why US/corporate empire spent so much blood & treasure, political capital, and moral high ground on sabotage & slaughter in places like Vietnam, Guatemala, and Indonesia - here's the answer. It was due to mortal fear that one of these third world socialist/communist popular movements might actually succeed. (That and plain old short-term business interests) See: The Jakarta Method, The Devils Chessboard, The Brothers, etc.
kieselguhr_kid 3y ago
It's a lot easier to argue against Marx than against Marxism, just as it's a lot easier to argue against Darwin than evolution. Marxism as a school of thought has evolved quite a bit since Marx, who any non-crank would admit was wrong about a host of things. Marxism is largely descriptive, and so many people claim that it cannot be falsified. But there are ways you could falsify Marxism: - Capitalism could mediate class conflict out of existence - Capitalism could grow indefinitely without producing business crises - Wages across the world could become roughly equal in terms of purchasing power, regardless of the country, without an economic crisis. Now, these would have to happen in the actually existing world, and as such I can see the resistance to labeling them as falsifiable. So how would you falsify orthodox economics?

legitster 3y ago

Marxism is kind of like the chiropracty of economics. Just because Marx can explain everything and point out contradictions doesn't mean they are true. QoL is still in an upward climb. Average lifetime working hours is still marching down. We've peaked out on literacy and child mortality and preventable diseases with available technology. You have to ignore 120 years of intellectual progress on economics to still want to apply labor theory of value to problems. There may be a day when we can achieve some semblance of a "socialist" mode of production - but I can almost assure you it will not be from people following Marx's flawed analysis. It will be from people who understand either classical or keynesian economics, or whatever new understanding come from it, and apply them towards actual functional policies.

mschuster91 3y ago
[flagged]
- legitster 3y ago
  Are you arguing that Germany is not a capitalist country? I was collectively speaking about the capitalist world. > How can y'all be so damn certain you're the best in the world when five minutes worth of Googling is enough to completely destroy all your arguments?! Uhhhh, maybe read the comments a bit more clearly before jumping in. Do you always just jump in on random threads to say Americans are dumb?
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > Are you arguing that Germany is not a capitalist country? I was collectively speaking about the capitalist world. Even then, assuming we're not just talking about the US, it's a stretch to say "we" peaked out. We have a lot to do before anyone can make that claim, the problem is that in most countries politicians have been bought off by rich elites to lower taxes and reduce public spending (which has been done especially to education as that's the easiest), so there is no tax base left to fund what needs to be done. > Uhhhh, maybe read the comments a bit more clearly before jumping in. Do you always just jump in on random threads to say Americans are dumb? Fair point, removed the rant.

kbutler 3y ago

[flagged]

MarkMarine 3y ago
[flagged]
CrackerNews 3y ago
I thought value wasn't price? The way to salvage labor theory is really to turn it into macroeconomics where the labor value is amortized, which does restrict it as an applicable theory.
deciplex 3y ago
> Labor theory of value is trivially provable wrong (daily fluctuating prices, loss of value because of introduction of better products, etc.). I think, at a minimum, you should understand what the Labor Theory of Value is, before claiming that it is trivial to prove it wrong.
- kbutler 3y ago
  Labor Theory of Value: The value of a commodity can be objectively measured by the hours of socially necessary labor required to produce it. So the "value" of a commodity is fixed at the time of production. But what is "value"? It's not the utility ("use value"). It's not the market price, which changes over time. Marx and others try to map "value" to price (Transformation problem) and try to measure exploitation of workers using profits based on selling prices, so there's an attempt to consider this "value" as the correct, instrinsic worth of a commodity. Consider a brand-new in-the-box iPhone. It has a fixed labor-theory-value, yet its price and worth go down every year as new models come out. How does labor theory of value help to understand this? Mainstream economists had moved to a subjective value model even before Marx's death. See the "Marginal Revolution". This explains that the value of the old model iPhone is reduced because it is less useful than competing newer models, reducing the demand for the older model. Yet according to labor theory of value, its value is determined by its production. Thus "value" is best understood as a measure of a cost of production, not as a measure of the "worth" of a commodity. Wasteful labor? More cost, not more worth. Increased skill? Reduced labor cost to produce. Better tools/automation? Reduced labor, reduced cost. Where's the misunderstanding?

MarkMarine 3y ago

It seems the many of the only people who really read and understood Marx looked at it and said “well ok, I’m going to be one of the capitalists, and this is actually good.” There are actually planned economies in our system, Einstein would have been shocked by Walmart. I recommend “People’s Republic of Walmart” by Phillips and Rozworski if you want to read about it.

Natsu 3y ago

The labor theory of value is bogus, though. A doctor doing work on their own car and a mechanic diagnosing their own illness are both worse off than if they exchange their labor with each other, even if Marxist thought wants to equate their labors.