General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOne of the nice things about being well-versed in Marxism
is that family and friends know what an actual critique of capitalism looks like. When they say "so-and-so is a communist/socialist," I actually show them what that would look like. Now, they may not like Obama's vision of how regulations within capitalism ought to function (turns out they have NO IDEA of how regulations work at all), but they no longer see him as a socialist--unless every repub. president, including Saint Ronny, is MORE socialist than is Obama.
Now, I don't try to convince them to become Marxists (which doesn't necessarily mean becoming a communist). They are actually persuaded by Marx's vision of the human worker and his inherent ties to community. I explain just how anti-human someone like Henry Ford and his assembly line was. Wouldn't it be nice to taste the fruits of our labor? It's amazing that we can all agree on this. They also are convinced by critiques of surplus labor and see it for the bullshit inherent in unrestrained exploitations of surplus labor. And then I leave it at that.
I try to show them that Obama (and all of the dems.--including Bernie) are capitalists through and through. Hell, I even show them how Marx's and various Marxist solutions to Marxist analyses of the problems of capitalism fail. Are any of my family and friends now committed dems.? No. Some are even more hardcore Randians after talking with me. But at least they don't do the Obama-socialist thing. They know it's bullshit.
Oh, yeah, we usually have these talks over beer--that I brewed (maybe even some moonshine--shhhhhhhh). The fruits of one's labor, you know.
gateley
(62,683 posts)about it.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)In our very own DU Socialist Progressives group!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1024220
ithinkmyliverhurts
(1,928 posts)Much more accessible are Singer's _Marx: A Very Short Introduction_ or Eagleton's _Why Marx was Right_. I like Eagleton's book as an intro.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)It takes the form of FAQ basically. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
Also, the Socialist group has a reading list by various socialist thinkers. Everyone from Marx/Engels to Lenin/Trotsky and beyond. Here is the reading list: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1024220
You know what might be even better if you want basic text on Marxist economics? Value, Price, Profit. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/
Or if you're feeling very brave, jump into Capital.
nanabugg
(2,198 posts)socialism, and marxism ought to be taught in our public schools.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Just wondering what that means to you. Thanks.
ithinkmyliverhurts
(1,928 posts)He is my favorite senator and espouses a classic form of democratic socialism.
I was being a stubborn purist in lumping him in with capitalists (i.e., one can't write books and go on book tours without participating in the system), but I was just being a dick-face. I take it all back. Would that I were the man Senator Sanders is.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)People use varying definitions for some of these labels and isms.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)because he supports markets and private ownership of the means of production. I'm not saying this to attack him, because he is the best ally the working class has in the U.S. Congress, but he does support capitalism, just a very strongly regulated variety.
ithinkmyliverhurts
(1,928 posts)for it takes capitalism to cripple and undo capitalism. The system simply can't sustain itself. I'm not so sure Sen. Sanders holds this position, but again, I don't want to be a purist in these matters. Would that more Senators were like him.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)I think Sander's Ideal would be a social-democratic state like Norway. That is what he is trying to achieve. I don't think he has the goal of a stateless classless society. I could be wrong. Like I said, though, I'm not trying to attack him. I think he is a a good man fighting for the working class in the way he thinks is best. I just wish we could clone him.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)He has called himself at various times a democratic socialist or social-democrat. Those terms easily blur for people who prefer or expect relatively gradual evolution from capitalism toward socialism. I could lump myself in with that description.
Once you see the social-democratic program as a stepping stone to more fundamental changes in economic and social relationships, then the policies of social-democrats are the same as democratic-socialists, and the distinction becomes moot.
But from what I've seen Sanders does advocate Norway-type social democracy like you mentioned. Whether it is his end goal or he has some other vision beyond that, doesn't interest me so much.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)This is a product of Cold War dichotomous thinking, where everything was either absolutely America-style free-range capitalism, or it was Soviet-style centralized communism, with nothing in between, no outliers, nothing; one or the other.
Sanders supports markets, because how the hell else are you going to have an economic system? He happens to understand that an unregulated market cannot function effectively, though. This is an understanding that both major parties seem to have trouble understanding.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)I don't see how you can have socialism when you have markets and wage labor. Even in Social-Democracy, which is what Sanders wants, there is a capitalist class and a working class. Socialism seeks to abolish class itself.
leftstreet
(36,102 posts)A person 'well-versed' in Marxism should know that
ithinkmyliverhurts
(1,928 posts)Some sort of solution is what surplus value of labor leads to--almost inherently. The Stanford Encyclopedia offers a nice cut-and-paste short-hand:
"Capitalism is distinctive, Marx argues, in that it involves not merely the exchange of commodities, but the advancement of capital, in the form of money, with the purpose of generating profit through the purchase of commodities and their transformation into other commodities which can command a higher price, and thus yield a profit. Marx claims that no previous theorist has been able adequately to explain how capitalism as a whole can make a profit. Marx's own solution relies on the idea of exploitation of the worker. In setting up conditions of production the capitalist purchases the worker's labour power his ability to labour for the day. The cost of this commodity is determined in the same way as the cost of every other; i.e. in terms of the amount of socially necessary labour power required to produce it. In this case the value of a day's labour power is the value of the commodities necessary to keep the worker alive for a day. Suppose that such commodities take four hours to produce. Thus the first four hours of the working day is spent on producing value equivalent to the value of the wages the worker will be paid. This is known as necessary labour. Any work the worker does above this is known as surplus labour, producing surplus value for the capitalist. Surplus value, according to Marx, is the source of all profit. In Marx's analysis labour power is the only commodity which can produce more value than it is worth, and for this reason it is known as variable capital. Other commodities simply pass their value on to the finished commodities, but do not create any extra value. They are known as constant capital. Profit, then, is the result of the labour performed by the worker beyond that necessary to create the value of his or her wages. This is the surplus value theory of profit."
The reason why we're often told that Marx offers no solutions is because his solutions are untenable, especially as laid out in Kapital Vol. 2 and 3. He truly believed himself to be doing science, but his economics suffer mightily. Singer's _Very Short Introduction_ lays this out in general terms and succinctly.
I'm not a fan of the following excerpts (which follow the above paragraph quoted), but they give support that he did in fact offer a solution:
"It appears to follow from this analysis that as industry becomes more mechanised, using more constant capital and less variable capital, the rate of profit ought to fall. For as a proportion less capital will be advanced on labour, and only labour can create value. In Capital Volume 3 Marx does indeed make the prediction that the rate of profit will fall over time, and this is one of the factors which leads to the downfall of capitalism. (However, as pointed out by Marx's able expositor Paul Sweezy in The Theory of Capitalist Development, the analysis is problematic.) A further consequence of this analysis is a difficulty for the theory that Marx did recognise, and tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to meet also in Capital Volume 3. It follows from the analysis so far that labour intensive industries ought to have a higher rate of profit than those which use less labour. Not only is this empirically false, it is theoretically unacceptable. Accordingly, Marx argued that in real economic life prices vary in a systematic way from values. Providing the mathematics to explain this is known as the transformation problem, and Marx's own attempt suffers from technical difficulties. Although there are known techniques for solving this problem now (albeit with unwelcome side consequences), we should recall that the labour theory of value was initially motivated as an intuitively plausible theory of price. But when the connection between price and value is rendered as indirect as it is in the final theory, the intuitive motivation of the theory drains away. But even if the defender of the theory is still not ready to concede defeat, a further objection appears devastating. Marx's assertion that only labour can create surplus value is unsupported by any argument or analysis, and can be argued to be merely an artifact of the nature of his presentation. Any commodity can be picked to play a similar role. Consequently with equal justification one could set out a corn theory of value, arguing that corn has the unique power of creating more value than it costs. Formally this would be identical to the labour theory of value.
Although Marx's economic analysis is based on the discredited labour theory of value, there are elements of his theory that remain of worth. The Cambridge economist Joan Robinson, in An Essay on Marxian Economics, picked out two aspects of particular note. First, Marx's refusal to accept that capitalism involves a harmony of interests between worker and capitalist, replacing this with a class based analysis of the worker's struggle for better wages and conditions of work, versus the capitalist's drive for ever greater profits. Second, Marx's denial that there is any long-run tendency to equilibrium in the market, and his descriptions of mechanisms which underlie the trade-cycle of boom and bust. Both provide a salutary corrective to aspects of orthodox economic theory."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
Again, I have no desire to get into the nitty-gritty of his solutions, but they do exist--both in general and in particular.
leftstreet
(36,102 posts)That's like saying the 'solution' you get when turning on a light switch is light. Try 'result.'
at 'a harmony of interests between worker and capitalist'
ithinkmyliverhurts
(1,928 posts)Something has to fill the vacuum when capitalism inevitably fails or is displaced. Marx clearly has a program for the latter and is certain about the former, which is why he is often mocked. It is also why many shamed, ill-informed Marxists say he never offered solutions--because if all he offers is a result from ill-formed premises, then his results are also ill-informed. Perhaps you've only read _The Communist Manifesto_, which is fine, but Kapital lays things out pretty systematically.; Vol. 2 is forgotten, it seems. But even in the CM he argues that the final nail in capitalism is the actions of an organized international working class. This is at its foundation NOT a result, NOT organic, but a call to a solution.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)I agree with you that it does seem like a solution, but I've seen some Marxists who take an extremely deterministic view of Historical Materialism and will argue with you all day that working class organization is the natural result of capitalism. Some have substituted the will of God for the will of history and call it Marxism. I think their view of Historical Materialism is a rather shallow and flawed one, but I've heard it.
ithinkmyliverhurts
(1,928 posts)This is a common fight. I've been engaged in this stuff for so long that I find my fights with capitalists are much nicer than ones with fellow Marxists. Funny, that.
We won't get into Trotskyites and Leninists; it makes DU Gungeon arguments look tame.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)I post on a Leftist board sometimes and I've seen those debates. It's like Marvel vs D.C. It's really crazy. I haven't heard the Hegelian comparison, but I'd be interested if you'd elaborate or just PM me if you feel this is derailing the thread.
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)To the point where the professor hurled a copy of Derrida at the class and said, "this is fucked up."
Good times, good times!
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)summary?
ps: the only people "discrediting" the labor theory of value are mainstream shill economists, i.e. members of a cult.
Nor is LTV exclusively marx's; all the classical economists espoused some version of same.
oh, & adam smith also predicted an eventual decline of profit margins as well. and decline of profit margins was what the developed world got in the 70s -- a problem it momentarily "solved" by exploiting new sources of labor/new techniques of production, etc.
although i read an analysis the other day which had it that since the recession, the #1 source of profit was the government sector -- i.e. gov't transfer of wealth, through various mechanisms, to capital.
here's the chapters in capital II. can you tell me in which chapter marx writes about these solutions?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/cw/volume36/index.htm
ithinkmyliverhurts
(1,928 posts)that a solution is given in Vol. 2; I simply say that it is ignored in his systematic undertaking of the problem. But Marx's solutions are always found in his critiques of the problem--in short, the problem has to go away to end alienation of the worker. An analysis of labor theory of value (and of surplus value) is crucial for this.
If one wants a pithy sentence in which Marx offers a simple solution, one will search in vain. The solution, however, is not simply deterministic. The final chapter of _CM_ makes this abundantly clear. Marx's sacastic treatment of hourly labor in Kapital Vol. 1 is great. If one can't see the unsustainability of the system here (and the immorality) then one isn't trying (not to accuse you of such things). Here's the link to section 10: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm
I think we can divine a general solution to the problem laid out above (though Marxists obviously disagree on the specifics--not a homogeneous group). I love the last paragraph of section 10:
"It must be acknowledged that our labourer comes out of the process of production other than he entered. In the market he stood as owner of the commodity labour-power face to face with other owners of commodities, dealer against dealer. The contract by which he sold to the capitalist his labour-power proved, so to say, in black and white that he disposed of himself freely. The bargain concluded, it is discovered that he was no free agent, that the time for which he is free to sell his labour-power is the time for which he is forced to sell it, [163] that in fact the vampire will not lose its hold on him so long as there is a muscle, a nerve, a drop of blood to be exploited. [164] For protection against the serpent of their agonies, the labourers must put their heads together, and, as a class, compel the passing of a law, an all-powerful social barrier that shall prevent the very workers from selling, by voluntary contract with capital, themselves and their families into slavery and death. [165] In place of the pompous catalogue of the inalienable rights of man comes the modest Magna Charta of a legally limited working-day, which shall make clear when the time which the worker sells is ended, and when his own begins. Quantum mutatus ab illo! [What a great change from that time! Virgil] [166]"
It may be a day or so before I can return to this. Thanks for the reply.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)so long as surplus value is still being extracted -- limitation of the working day wasn't a solution, but a precondition to further struggle.
the limitation of the working-day is a preliminary condition without which all further attempts at improvement and emancipation must prove abortive... the Congress proposes eight hours as the legal limit of the working-day.
Further steps towards a reformation of society can never be carried out with any hope of success, unless the hours of labour be limited, and the prescribed limit strictly enforced.
BOG PERSON
(2,916 posts)leftstreet
(36,102 posts)That's a modern perversion of the phrase making people think of Hitler or something.
Many things were referred to then as 'the dictatorship of...' relating to constitutional systems, temporary or permanent.
BOG PERSON
(2,916 posts)where the proletariat consolidates power and at the same time abolishes itself. imo
"You will have to go through fifteen, twenty, fifty years of civil wars and international conflicts, not only in order to transform your circumstances but to transform yourselves and make yourselves fit for political power"
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)them automatically?
i wouldn't even know how to start such a discussion with most of the folks i know -- they're yellers and the mere mention of marx would start them up.
eridani
(51,907 posts)All urban fire departments operate under the maxim "From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs." The first part explains why people with more valuable property pay higher taxes; the second why they won't send a truck out unless you have a fire or other emergency.
(Although a rural volunteer fire department is more anarcho-sydicalist IMO.)
econoclast
(543 posts)Sorry, but Marx is just plain old, flat wrong. All of Marx stands (or alas falls) on the Labor Theory of Value. And LTV is wrong. For the uninitiated, LTV says that prices - ALL prices - come from the amount of labor required to produce the item or service. According to LTV, supply and demand DO NOT generate prices. Only the amount of labor contained in an item or service.
LTV is demonstrably false. A quick trip to the mall easily provides examples showing the fallacy of LTV.
Classic example. Consider the wages of A-Rod vs Michael Phelps. Does it take more labor to be an Gold Glove Major League infielder or to win 8 Olympic Gold Medals?
The fact is that A-Rod makes Waaaaay more than Phelps is that lots more people want to pay to see A-Rod play baseball ( to boo him or cheer him) than are willing to pay to watch Phelps swim. Hence LTV is wrong. And without LTV, all of Marx is fiction. Interesting fiction, but fiction nonetheless.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)You said:"for the uninitiated, LTV says that prices - ALL prices - come from the amount of labor required to produce the item or service." This is a false understanding. The LTV is not price, but value. Marx said value was the socially necessary labor time or "the amount of labor put into an object." He even said price was not a direct reflection of an object's value, but was influenced by other factors as well.
srjmsbnd
(24 posts)Even a Dyslexic Like me Understands sometimes it is a complex subject that you explained in response nicely, prices do mot equal value as in actuality money in many parts of the world are not always used.
BOG PERSON
(2,916 posts)what if i spend eight hours a day making mud pies and i try to sell them for the same price as eight hours of, say, a skilled machinist's labor power? and then nobody wants to buy them? this is literally how karl marx thinks the economy works. no thanks karl marx. i'd rather go to the mall!
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)It is not the duration of labor that adds value, but the changes it works in the materials it is applied to. A skilled machinist's labor converts, say, a bar of stock steel into the cylinder of an aeroplane motor, and that portion of an engine has far greater value ( and indeed, will command a far higher price ), than the bar of stock steel. A less skilled workman, say a cement finisher smoothing the floors of a building under construction, also adds value to a clump of wet cement, by turning it into a level and smooth surface, and people certainly pay more for a finished floor than for the several sacks of concrete powder that become it when mixed, poured, and finished.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)I have seen stuff on that level presented with all seriousness, and it is the sort of thing that just gets right up my left nostril....
'Romney loves America like a tick loves a dog."
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)srjmsbnd
(24 posts)If you want to be bored to death and spend a lot of money go to the mall perhaps you can buy one of those bottles of champagne heard about in another group sold for 100,000 euros but if you were smart you would get it where it is manufactured and get it for less like at a place like Moe Ginsberg's Clothiers.
Unfortunately you like cheap material and workmanship sold for more than it is worth.
I better example, materials and labor
two eggs salt, fresh butter, two tablespoons of chopped onions, two teaspoon whole powdered milk
preparation time (10 minutes) labor forty years of cooking experience
(times 6 for six) only $120 sold cheap, real value $5 for company on the patio/.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)Or, for that matter, value added by labor. It is no accident that persons arguing against the proposition labor adds value to materials commonly resort to examples from sport, where nothing tangible is involved.
In fact, at every step where products are produced, labor adds value, defined as first utility and then as desirability, to materials.
srjmsbnd
(24 posts)It takes twenty years to throw a football during which there is a lot of health care and food, and housing and care expenses, cost is not what is paid in wages. but what it cost to be able to produce the work, in the scheme of relativity the component usually left out is time experience and what it take to live that life.
Response to econoclast (Reply #22)
srjmsbnd This message was self-deleted by its author.
srjmsbnd
(24 posts)Marx and the LTV is right, your critics are correct you are wrong, there are a million examples of how there is no connection between value and price which can be compared to the most basic simplicity in production and explained by the most foolish scheme in marketing which is why they are separated.
A design sketch may cost the manufacturer hundreds thousands but it can almost cost the person who designs it nothing, so they say it is worthless with out it being sold but in actuality they can not sell what is not produced. Capitalist arguments are solipsistic and circular that they have perfected based on marketing not industry and manufacturing (which is why they can continue marketing long after industry collapses and outsourced.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I somewhat agree with Thom Hartmann who said that he had nailed the problem right, but didn't have the right solution to the problem. However, I don't find Marxism itself to be evil unless it's paired with a totalitarian regime. We all know that the extreme of communism failed in the twentieth century, like the extreme of capitalism is failing in this century, but there is plenty of room for socialism in our commons in a democratic and capitalistic society
deaniac21
(6,747 posts)at DU.