tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post6051085766602414189..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: What is the Case against Marxism in a Nutshell?Lord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-68268447654407968372021-07-31T15:39:57.657-07:002021-07-31T15:39:57.657-07:00Dear LK. I'm convinced by your argument, that ...Dear LK. I'm convinced by your argument, that labour theory of value is wrong. But I'm not convinced, that marxism is for the dustbin of history, for three reasons: <br />1. Even if LTV is wrong, most capitalist economies are exploitative. Capitalism cannot work without people who are forced to sell their labour power, because they don't have property. And it is quite expectable, that the owners of the means of production want and will their structurally entrenched advantageous position towards the propertyless workers to increase their part from the social surplus - they likely will get more from social surplus than their contribution to it. <br />2. The theory of capitalist crises - according to SImon Clarke - is NOT based on labour theory of value.<br />3. The capitalist society eliminates absolute poverty and promotes universal intercourse - possibilities of communication among people. And just these (universal intercourse and universal development of productive forces) are the preconditions of communism, of a classless society, according to Marx. Miklos Szalainoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-5152603333951484502017-07-20T06:33:29.368-07:002017-07-20T06:33:29.368-07:00"the size of the working class eventually sta..."the size of the working class eventually stabilised and society was swelled by a growing and prosperous middle class and social mobility."<br />-------------------------------<br /><br />In pre-industrial states, the most part of the people was engaged in agriculture. In today's United Kingdom, for example, less than 1% of the people is so engaged. This does not say that the UK has found how to do live without food but it says there is a huge increase in agricultural productivity. It is similar with industrial production: a smaller % of the people must work in manufacturing to produce a given sum of output. The idea that the manufacturing disappeared speaks of a European or North American aspect. What has in fact happened is that the Western European industrial nations now import industrial products from Asian nations. Although manufacturing labor may be going away in one part of the world it is coming in another.Tomislav Zahovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04131998326617930709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-52238858643615183332017-07-16T11:10:50.164-07:002017-07-16T11:10:50.164-07:00https://ianwrightsite.wordpress.com/2017/05/19/jus...https://ianwrightsite.wordpress.com/2017/05/19/just-what-is-a-labour-value-anyway/<br />https://ianwrightsite.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/general-theory-labour-value2.pdf<br />https://ianwrightsite.wordpress.com/2017/05/19/just-what-is-a-labour-value-anyway/<br />https://ianwrightsite.wordpress.com/<br />It seems to me that Ian Wright has solved the main problems you mentioned... Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16078469405047323801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-82607051898936781842017-07-11T06:00:40.444-07:002017-07-11T06:00:40.444-07:00The labour theory of value seems sentimental to me...The labour theory of value seems sentimental to me at a time when people are not in touch with the hands that feed them. <br /><br />I suppose there's Fairtrade and organic where the emotions of the consumer provide pity pennies for labour. And I suppose there's danger money in jobs of superior hardship, but you're not being paid to face the danger, you're being paid because no one else will.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18058312517181792199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-27666733328435756582017-07-11T05:33:24.397-07:002017-07-11T05:33:24.397-07:00We met the underlying growth of unemployment with ...We met the underlying growth of unemployment with world wars, the 8-hour working day, and jobsworthism. Free consumption doesn't seem to mop up unemployment alone and in future I believe maintaining full employment will require compulsory consumption.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18058312517181792199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-41117130739825824692017-07-09T11:24:42.280-07:002017-07-09T11:24:42.280-07:00Arguing over the true points and fallacies of econ...Arguing over the true points and fallacies of economic theories is largely irrelevant once it is realized that continuous borrowing is REQUIRED in order to keep the economy's nose above water. The actual problem is with the money system and its enforcement of its paradigms of Debt and Loan Only. And this is why monetary Gifting intelligently integrated/saturated into the economy is the new paradigm. Guys like Steve Keen and Michael Hudson, and people like Ellen Brown all recommend policies and reforms that perfectly echo and reflect individual fragmentary aspects of the concept behind the new paradigm of Gifting and so are not fully aware of the concept itself. Their investigative perspective is only from economics and is only about reform. Being educated on economics largely by Keen and integrating my adult studies of philosophy and the world's wisdom traditions into the analysis has enabled me to fully flesh out the primary concept behind the new paradigm and develop and extend the where, when and how of the specific policies that will end Finance's current tyrannically dominating paradigms and so free both the individual and enterprise as well as the entirety of profit making systems. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10115431758912669755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-8181864567262181752017-07-08T15:13:33.432-07:002017-07-08T15:13:33.432-07:00Marx was right when he argued that the industrial ...Marx was right when he argued that the industrial reserve army of labour (the unemployed) grows and grows, and helps to hold real wages in check. The U.S. keeps an intentional 5-6 percent unemployment rate, part of what Milton Friedman calls "the natural rate of unemployment." Whenever unemployment falls below that, the economy starts "overheating," or developing a bad case of inflation. To combat this, the Federal Reserve tightens the money supply, which lowers inflation but raises unemployment back to 5-6 percent. What this means is that there will always be more workers than jobs, and workers have to compete for those jobs, accepting lower wages to get them.Tomislav Zahovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04131998326617930709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-32822548718644039822017-07-08T10:43:10.611-07:002017-07-08T10:43:10.611-07:00Integrate the truths, workabilities and highest et...Integrate the truths, workabilities and highest ethical considerations of Keynes, Marx and Smith. When in doubt integrate!...and keep on integrating and you'll end up with economic wisdom.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10115431758912669755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-57157344649298818752017-07-08T07:26:13.577-07:002017-07-08T07:26:13.577-07:00Interesting article! Two concerns arise for me and...Interesting article! Two concerns arise for me and I am wondering how you would respond to them.<br /><br />Describing Marx's theory of value you say:<br /><br /><b>the substance of value is abstract socially necessary labour time, which must be defined as a homogeneous unit capable of aggregating and measuring all heterogeneous types of human labour-power</b><br /><br />You respond, saying:<br /><br /><b>There are devastating problems with the very concept of a homogeneous unit of abstract, socially necessary labour time and serious empirical problems with the theory, as I show here. The very concept, as Marx defines it, cannot be accepted or defended as coherent or meaningful, and is contrary to the empirical evidence.</b><br /><br />But in defining the units he would use in <i>The General Theory</i> <a href="https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch04.htm" rel="nofollow">Keynes</a> wrote:<br /><br /><b>In dealing with the theory of employment I propose, therefore, to make use of only two fundamental units of quantity, namely, quantities of money-value and quantities of employment. The first of these is strictly homogeneous, and the second can be made so.</b><br /><br />So Keynes, like Marx, uses "a homogeneous unit capable of aggregating and measuring all heterogeneous types of human labour-power".<br /><br />Thinking along similar lines, <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN2.html#I.6.2" rel="nofollow">Adam Smith</a> wrote:<br /><br /><b>If the one species of labour should be more severe than the other, some allowance will naturally be made for this superior hardship; and the produce of one hour's labour in the one way may frequently exchange for that of two hours labour in the other.</b><br /><br />Here is my question: If Marx's view is unacceptable, are the views of Keynes and Smith also unacceptable? Or if their views are acceptable, why is Marx's not?<br /><br /><br />My second concern arises as your description of the problem continues:<br /><br /><b>The labour theory does not explain price determination (for how most prices are actually determined, see <a href="https://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/p/there-is-mountain-of-empirical-evidence.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>), and the theory of price determination in volume 3 of Capital is inconsistent with that in volume 1.</b><br /><br />I followed the link and see that you say<br /><br /><b>Mark-up prices are set ... on the basis of (1) total average unit costs plus (2) a profit mark-up</b><br /><br />I agree with carlninja1: Seems fairly similar to me.<br /><br />I understand that prices vary with respect to costs. Still, it seems that costs create a dividing line that separates profit from loss. I think Marx's theory of value, and Smith's, are too readily dismissed.<br />The Arthurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-68478260793096886882017-07-07T15:13:08.458-07:002017-07-07T15:13:08.458-07:00It isn’t the state that will “wither away”, it’s t...It isn’t the state that will “wither away”, it’s the dominance of Finance. And that is why the natural philosophical concept of grace as in monetary and economic Gifting is the new paradigm necessary to be integrated into the debt based money and digital pricing systems. And of course all of the other aspects of that concept will apply to and will need to be aligned with every other facet of economic theory and regulation thereof….as has always been the case with a paradigm change, i.e. everything adapts to the new paradigm…not the other way around.<br /><br />To reject Wisdomics-Gracenomics is to have absent or incomplete mental integrations likely on several subjects/bodies of knowledge. Sorry, grace is complete integration and continuous integrating, and the rational consideration of morals, i.e. ethics.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10115431758912669755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-2032371130989465892017-07-07T07:12:38.254-07:002017-07-07T07:12:38.254-07:00Isn't the marxist theory of prices and mark-up...Isn't the marxist theory of prices and mark-up pricing fairly similar? In the marxist theory of prices, prices represent the underlying labor costs, with capitalists taking a cut as surplus value. In mark-up pricing, prices represent underlying costs plus a mark-up for profit. Seems fairly similar to me. The major difference would be that in the marxist theory, all costs basically reduce to labor costs, while this isn't the case in mark-up pricing (i think). Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00737940350382307015noreply@blogger.com