tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post6781210079340933732..comments2024-03-28T17:08:15.784-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Marx’s Labour Theory of Value and Rothbard’s Homesteading Property-Rights Theory: Peas in a PodLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-33036551247076248082015-05-07T12:56:06.542-07:002015-05-07T12:56:06.542-07:00The idea that it is solely descriptive and not at ...<i>The idea that it is solely descriptive and not at all prescriptive is at best specious, and more generally nonsensical. It is both descriptive and prescriptive.</i><br /><br />Two completely separate ideas. One of them says "here's what happens" and another says "here's how I feel about it." If you can't separate them, that's on you. Go read the Baumol piece I referenced. It shows handily M&E's contention that surplus value <i>rightfully belongs to the capitalist</i>, merely describing the norms of the social status quo. The fact that they morally objected to said status quo is a separate point.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-17198954389263486802015-04-30T06:27:29.060-07:002015-04-30T06:27:29.060-07:00The idea that it is solely descriptive and not at ...The idea that it is solely descriptive and not at all prescriptive is at best specious, and more generally nonsensical. It is both descriptive and prescriptive. The prescriptive ideas are coupled to his description of his 'ideal' society. From "A critique of the Gotha program":<br /><br />"In a higher phase of communist society, after the *enslaving subordination* of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the *narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"*<br /><br />If there are no prescriptions here, or in Marx's work on communism, no absolute moral values, and only the circumstances of a historical period, the whole Marxist enterprise is devoid of reason. Why should one care about the "enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor", much less care about changing it? Why should one work to achieve a meritocracy defined by "to each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"? Why bother caring about "crossing" the "narrow horizons of bourgeois right"? There is no reason to do so, unless exploitation is *wrong*.<br /><br />If exploitation is not wrong, if it has no moral status one way or the other, there is no reason to bother ending it or to care about it. There is no reason to care about communism. To say Marx believed there is no reason to bother ending or caring about worker exploitation and did not believe communism was a morally better form of society than capitalism means he spent his life on a pointless intellectual exercise, and irrationally supported a political movement, since there is no rational reason to support a political movement you don't care about. Von Minskynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-45344692782007312682015-03-29T12:55:10.181-07:002015-03-29T12:55:10.181-07:00Exploitation is a descriptive account, not a presc...Exploitation is a descriptive account, not a prescriptive. Marx himself is explicit that surplus value belongs to the capitalist. Baumol illustrates this in his essay, "Marx and the Iron Law of Wages," under section II. (Source: The American Economic Review, Vol. 73, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the 95th Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (May, 1983), pp. 303-308)<br /><br />Not that you've shown any interest in any of the sources I've provided. And, lately, you're not even bothering to respond to my questions or comments, however polite or constructive.<br /><br />I guess that's one way to deal with critics. Very popular among neoclassicals over the last century, especially.<br /><br />Consider this long-time reader extremely disappointed.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-45892884666638183902015-03-29T10:55:54.977-07:002015-03-29T10:55:54.977-07:00So you don't think labour output with exchange...So you don't think labour output with exchange value belongs to the workers because the sole source of value is labour, and when capitalist take the surplus value they exploit workers? Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-85938863539733755552015-03-29T10:38:25.314-07:002015-03-29T10:38:25.314-07:00This is lazy twinning on LK's part. Trotsky b... This is lazy twinning on LK's part. Trotsky blasted this exercise quite well, he pointed out how to the liberal the communist and fascist are kin but to the fascist the liberal and communist are kin.<br /> But really he exploits idiocy on Rothbards part to attack Marx. Private property in goods? I think Marxists, that includes me, have a different definition involving something called the means of production. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-9017776003748360962015-03-29T01:36:52.330-07:002015-03-29T01:36:52.330-07:00Also, for Marx, there is a mystical element to lab...<i>Also, for Marx, there is a mystical element to labour value that manifests itself in the goods produced</i><br /><br />It's not mystical, dude. Not even a little. It's just a rhetorical flourish. Saying "x average hours of labor are embodied in this spoon" is the same as saying "it takes x average hours of labor to produce this spoon." It doesn't affect the mathematics, nor the relations, nor the mechanics that he goes on to describe. If you're down to just nitpicking his choices of figurative speech, I don't imagine there's much more to talk about.<br /><br />(Also, not for nothing, but Marx & Engels held nothing but contempt for utopian socialists.)<br /><br />It seems to me that you went into this whole Marx tangent with your conclusions pre-formed, and have since let your confirmation bias run the show. I've been a regular reader since you started this blog, and over the years I'd come to expect a much higher degree of care than you've demonstrated over the last few days. If you don't mind my asking: Why is this such a fraught topic for you? Why are you willing, before you criticize, to read and make sure you correctly comprehend Mises, but not Marx?Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-17315791051583140202015-03-28T11:01:24.554-07:002015-03-28T11:01:24.554-07:00Marxbardianism... Genial!!!! Marxbardianism... Genial!!!! www.MiguelNavascues.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00880006105532291958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-47524429117569286152015-03-28T09:54:54.759-07:002015-03-28T09:54:54.759-07:00Interesting post. If there was an award for &quo...Interesting post. If there was an award for "quirky post of the year" this might win.<br /><br />I actually like the idea of commodities as “objectified” labor" even though it doesn't hold up to close scrutiny, it certainly doesn't seem absurd.<br /><br />I think Rothbard and Marx are actually sides of the same coin. They both think that the creators of commodities should get the full fruits of their labors.<br /><br />I think they err in difference directions though<br /><br />Marx forgets that the capital goods used in the production of commodities are the product of saving via "non consumption" in the past and the people who did the savings need to be motivated and rewarded via future interest payments to do the savings if the system is to be viable.<br /><br />Rothbard forgets (or fudges the fact) that these capital goods also contain inputs attributable to land and raw materials and that capitalist claims to ownership of (and profit from) these resources are far from clear cut.<br /><br />Marx underestimates the just return to capital over labor and Rothbard overestimates it.<br /><br />robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.com