Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    There's this thing called a need for food to live which kind of necessitates you do something productive if you don't have a state.



    'Socialist welfare state' is an oxymoron. Welfare states only exist in capitalist economies.



    You really are a pathetic little child, aren't you?

    If you feel the need to come onto an internet forum and make pathetic attempts to puff up your own ego and try and insult people you don't know, then you've probably achieved less than most 5 year olds and I wouldn't expect that to change unless you grow up.

    By all means, if you have some weird self-esteem problem that forces you to act like a child and try and pretend via random attacks that you actually belong on a site that it supposed to be for educated discussion, continue to post your babyish rants, but don't expect people to take you seriously in a debate.
    You lost your seriousness the moment you started supporting socialism - the biggest sign of general educational failure (or bad upbringing) (or both)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I'm yet to hear any alternative proposal as to where value comes from.

    There are slightly more arguments against the specific Marxist LTV in the details, but I'm still yet to hear a refutation of it. Most critiques of it simply talk past it.
    You've not heard a single alternative proposal at all? Have you actually researched this topic? The earliest and most devastating critique was offered by Eugene Boehm-Bawerk about a hundred years ago.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    (An excerpt of a book offering a critique of Marx' theory of value.)

    "Marx meant something entirely different by exploitation. He uses the term to designate a situation in which workers do not receive the full value of the products their labor creates. The surplus is the source of rent, interest, and profit. The details of Marx's claim will be addressed immediately below. But even on the basis of this very rough sketch, it is apparent that Marx's claim does not by itself show that something is wrong with capitalism. Unless there is something objectionable about Marxist exploitation, it does not follow that workers exploited in Marx's sense will find in their circumstances a reason for change. A more detailed account of Marxist exploitation will clarify this contention. In Marx's view, the socially necessary labor time required to produce a commodity is the basis of its exchange value. If, e.g., one house exchanges on the market for two cars, then the labor needed to produce one house will be twice the labor needed to produce two cars. By 'socially necessary,' Marx means roughly speaking, the 'average amount' of labor required to make something.1 Marx does not maintain that prices on the capitalist market are the exact equivalent of labor values. Rather, in a complicated and disputed way, labor values underlie market prices. Fortunately, for the purposes of this essay we can avoid this arid and arcane sector of Marxist scholasticism. A 'bare bones' account of Marx's economics is all that we need.

    The labor theory of value applies to labor. Like other commodities, the price of labor, i.e., the wages laborers receive, is determined by the labor-value of labor. This at first sounds like an impossible expression, just as the 'length in feet of one foot' has no meaning. How can the standard of value itself have a value? But, in Marx's view, appearances are deceiving. We can find a labor value for the laborer: this is the labor time required to produce him. Put more simply, the value of labor is the laborer's cost of living, determined by whatever a society regards as needed for living. Here precisely, Marx thinks, lies the key to the riddle of profit. A capitalist employer pays labor its price, i.e., its labor value, computed in the way just explained. For this price he gets whatever the laborer can produce during the time he works. In Marx's formula, the capitalist buys labor power but pays only for labor. The difference between the two quantities is surplus value, the source of rent, interest, and profit. The rate of surplus value Marx also terms the rate of exploitation. Marx attached great value to his proof of exploitation, since he believed that with it he had laid bare the secret of capitalism. The driving force of a capitalist economy is profit; without it, the economy would grind to a halt. Yet how is profit possible, if everything exchanges for its true labor value? Precisely in the purchase of labor, as Marx conceived of it, the answer lies at hand. The capitalist does not pay the laborer less than his value. The laborer's wages are determined by the value of the commodities required to produce him, and in equilibrium he does not receive less than this. But because of surplus value, the capitalist can still secure his profit. In Marx's analysis, therefore, the entire capitalist system rests on the exploitation of labor. No exploitation, no surplus value; no surplus value, no profit; no profit, no capitalism. Marx's ingenious argument has not at all withstood the test of critical analysis. Most importantly, it rests on the discredited labor theory of value. Marxists have never been adequately able to reply to the devastating analysis by Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk.

    Marx could show that market prices can be derived from labor values, by using a formula that gives the 'correct' results. In what way would this prove that labor values are the explanation of price? Marx's assumption that labor value was 'ultimate' would remain just that-an assumption. Given these and other difficulties, it is small wonder that most of the recent 'analytical Marxists,' a group which has attempted to revivify Marxism by applying to it the techniques of analytic philosophy and modern economics, dispense altogether with the labor theory. But what of Marx's much vaunted explanation of profit? This too fails, even if one grants Marx the labor theory of value. Sometimes, first thoughts are best; and the phrase "the labor value of labour" is indeed unmeaning. Labor is the measure of value: if so, it cannot at the same time have a value. Marx quite correctly noted that one can on his theory obtain the labor value of a laborer. But laborers are not for sale on the capitalist market: this, on the contrary, is the situation that obtains in a slave society. The laborer sells exactly what the capitalist buys-his labor power. Marx's explanation of profit through labor exploitation goes wrong at its first step. This brief excursion into Marxist economics enables us to grasp a principal weakness of Marx's argument that the arrival of socialism is inevitable. Part of his claim rests on showing that workers are exploited. Their exploitation in his view increases as capitalism develops. Eventually, they find conditions intolerable and revolt. "The death-knell of the old order sounds." As we have just seen, however, Marx has failed to demonstrate that workers under capitalism are exploited at all. To the extent that his case for the collapse of capitalism depends on proletarian dissatisfaction owing to exploitation, it at once collapses. The problems with Marx's view of exploitation go even deeper. As already mentioned, he uses a term, 'exploitation,' which suggests that something is wrong with the state of affairs so designated. But why should workers receive the full value of the products their labor helps to produce? Presumably workers, like everyone else, would like to increase their earnings; but why is the capitalist wage system one they will find intolerable?

    Of course one can take the line that capitalists are not the rightful possessors of their capital assets: their wrongful possession enable them to obtain a share of production to which they are not properly entitled. But this is a separate problem from the one Marx attempted to solve in his exploitation theory. Marx endeavored to show that workers suffered from exploitation stemming from the manner in which the market determines wages. This argument does not work and would not show anything wrong with capitalism if its conclusion were true."

    (Source - Requiem For Marx, pages 34-38)


    'll offer a critique now then, but I'd recommend reading this paper and the links I've given to let you see a more in-depth view of the argument.

    Take, for instance, the diamond and water paradox proposed by Adam Smith, who was an unfortunate proponent of a labour theory of value. Water is absolutely essential for human life whereas diamonds are mere attractive stones which come from the ground and serve little purpose other than to look good. So why is it that a single diamond can cost such a large amount of money whereas we can easily walk into a restaurant and ask for a glass of water for free? It is not, as Marx would have you believe, that the amount of labour invested in the diamond was so incredibly large, and that in the water so incredibly little. Instead it is, according to Carl Menger, due to the fact that water is in general abundance whereas diamonds are scarce. Thus, one single diamond represents a much larger percentage of the overall stock of diamonds than a glass of water does the overall stock of water. As a class of goods, water is more useful than diamonds. However when dealing with discrete quantities of water and diamonds, diamonds are clearly more valuable than water. An individual economic actor gauges the value of a commodity by its value to him and him only. Since everyone's time is scarce, he must make use of commodities based on a scale of value and on the marginal utility of the goods he possesses.

    Marx argued that, "The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion to the devaluation of the world of men. Labor produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity - and does so in the proportion in which it produces commodities generally." Aside from the rather obvious fact that empirical evidence has proven him wrong - the wealth of the working man has grown exponentially since the time in which Marx wrote the above, as has the general wealth of the world - Marx thinks that the workers' wealth decreases due to an increase in profits by the capitalists. This is rooted in the theory of surplus value - i.e. that a finished product will always cost more than the amount paid to the worker for labouring in the creation of this product, and the extra money gained is the surplus value which is expropriated by the capitalist.

    Hans Hoppe has already provided an adequate criticism of the theory of exploitation. Aside from the obvious values Hoppe assigns to his economic analysis, the criticism is justified. He says:

    What is wrong with Marx' theory of exploitation, then, is that he does not understand the phenomenon of time preference as a universal category of human action. That the laborer does not receive his "full worth" has nothing to do with exploitation but merely reflects the fact that it is impossible for man to exchange future goods against present ones except at a discount. Unlike the case of slave and slave master, where the latter benefits at the expense of the former, the relationship between the free laborer and the capitalist is a mutually beneficial one. The laborer enters the agreement because, given his time preference, he prefers a smaller amount of present goods over a larger future one; and the capitalist enters it because, given his time preference, he has a reverse preference order and ranks a larger future amount of goods more highly than a smaller present one. Their interests are not antagonistic but harmonious. Without the capitalist's expectation of an interest return, the laborer would be worse off because he would have to wait longer than he wishes to wait; and without the laborer's preference for present goods the capitalist would be worse off because he would have to resort to less roundabout and less efficient production methods than those he desires to adopt. Nor can the capitalist wage system be regarded as an impediment to the further development of the forces of production, as Marx claims. If the laborer were not permitted to sell his labor services and the capitalist to buy them, output would not be higher but lower because production would have to take place with relatively reduced levels of capital accumulation.


    What Hoppe is saying is that the time preferences of the capitalist and the labourer are obviously different, so a trade-off is involved whereby the labourer is rewarded a smaller amount of guaranteed goods in return for the capitalist being entitled to a larger amount of possible goods some time in the future.


    The real irony of the theory of exploitation is that it seems to contradict itself on the most basic reality: the supposed 'exploitation' of the workers is exactly what allows the workers to gain economic goods. Capitalists and their profits are what make employment possible. In order to become a wage-earner, which is better than not being a wage-earner if we wish to eat, clothe and house ourselves, we must rely on capitalists to invest capital in a plot of land and eventually turn it into a factory or whatever is in demand. Without capitalists, we'd have to rely on labouring in and selling (and thus profiting from) our own products, which would require us to buy land and develop it. Since most find this undesirable, we are willing to enter a trade-off with capitalists under which they profit. If labourers desire a larger share of money for their labour, they should desire more (and more competitive) capitalists.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Welfare states only exist in capitalist economies.
    True. Because they are the only ones that can afford it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mysteries)
    Einstein was a socialist. So was Tesla. So was Da Vinci. So are most smart people.

    I used to be a capitalist though...

    I won't bother arguing with capitalists over the internet.

    I'll just leave this here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFxYyXGMfZM
    smart - yes
    any education in economics - no
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Socialist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Capitalist, but not for all markets.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JuKaMy)
    smart - yes
    any education in capitalist propaganda - no
    fixed.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoberFox)
    What about the so-called transformation problem?
    Marx gave an answer to it at the same time as posing the original problem

    Also, an alternative is utility which is a more commonsensical way to measure value than labour hours.
    As my first point, notice you yourself use the word measure here. What creates the value?

    Secondly, utility does not determine values or prices, merely whether you as an individual are willing to pay them. For example, the vast majority of people have no use for 18 miles of railway track. But they'd still have to pay the price for them if they were going to buy them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mysteries)
    fixed.
    so you couldn't make you're point without changing what someone else actually said - that's a bit low
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    True. Because they are the only ones that can afford it.
    No, because modern states (it could be argued all states) only have two sorts of economy - markets and state-run, though pretty much all states have some sort of mix. To talk about a 'welfare state' in a state-run economy wouldn't really make sense, because it's just a part of the economy then.

    Which is why it would be preferable to simply abolish the state.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JuKaMy)
    Y
    That's where I stopped reading, because I knew there'd be nothing worthwhile in the post.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)

    Secondly, utility does not determine values or prices, merely whether you as an individual are willing to pay them. For example, the vast majority of people have no use for 18 miles of railway track. But they'd still have to pay the price for them if they were going to buy them.
    That is because somebody else will buy it at the given price.

    Notice how things are valued completely differently by different people. There are no intrinsic properties of things that give them value. Whether it be gold. Or labour time. The only determinant of value is marginal utility.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JuKaMy)
    so you couldn't make you're point without changing what someone else actually said - that's a bit low
    Einstein wrote an essay on socialism. It's safe to say he did his research.

    I'd say YOU lost all credibility when you attributed support of socialism to a lack of education or a "bad upbringing". My post highlights your hypocrisy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Marx gave an answer to it at the same time as posing the original problem
    That's not an answer to my question. I.e. after reading what you wrote, I still don't know what the answer is to the transformation problem.


    As my first point, notice you yourself use the word measure here. What creates the value?

    Secondly, utility does not determine values or prices, merely whether you as an individual are willing to pay them. For example, the vast majority of people have no use for 18 miles of railway track. But they'd still have to pay the price for them if they were going to buy them.
    Are you serious with this?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Secondly, utility does not determine values or prices, merely whether you as an individual are willing to pay them. For example, the vast majority of people have no use for 18 miles of railway track. But they'd still have to pay the price for them if they were going to buy them.
    If the vast majority of people have no use for 18 miles of track then they won't buy it. The small minority who will pay the money for the track obviously do value it, or else they wouldn't be buying it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PAPAdawg)
    simple question i'm sure. Are you a poverty creator or a wealth creator?

    I'm a capitalist. A real liberal not like the crap namby pamby imitations we have today who mistook liberalism for populism. IMO socialists are outright idiots and almost always peasants.
    I am sexy and I have fun with my lovers called Soc and Cap.
    I am neither of them yet I swing between both systems.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You capitalists DO realise of course that the UK and all developed countries are not actually capitalist right?

    The only countries that are capitalist (i.e. the "laissez faire" free market capitalism described by Adam Smith) are third world countries. Incidentally, capitalism is the reason that the third world never developed. I'm paraphrasing Chomsky again but you get the jist.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mysteries)
    You capitalists DO realise of course that the UK and all developed countries are not actually capitalist right?

    The only countries that are capitalist (i.e. the "laissez faire" free market capitalism described by Adam Smith) are third world countries. Incidentally, capitalism is the reason that the third world never developed. I'm paraphrasing Chomsky again but you get the jist.
    Lol, what third world country has capitalism by your definition?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Nobody can deny that the moral imperatives of socialism are noble. In fact, they embody mankind's deepest hopes and aspirations. But this moral force itself doesn't make socialism correct. Socialism proposes a planned economy, and central planning has proved itself thus far to be less efficient than a market system. Economic relations in capitalism may be inherently unequal but they are now mitigated somewhat by wealth redistribution and the welfare state.

    One of the major problems with central planning is the lack of the objective price system. On this basis, Richard M. Ebeling calls socialism 'impossible':

    http://www.thefreemanonline.org/feat...is-impossible/
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mysteries)
    You capitalists DO realise of course that the UK and all developed countries are not actually capitalist right?

    The only countries that are capitalist (i.e. the "laissez faire" free market capitalism described by Adam Smith) are third world countries. Incidentally, capitalism is the reason that the third world never developed. I'm paraphrasing Chomsky again but you get the jist.
    No. You would have to define what you mean by capitalism or laissez faire. Then explain why all the Third World countries are ''laissez faire'' and then explain why that is the reaon they are underdeveloped.

    (Just a little note : You might find your line of reasoning falls apart on property rights )
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.