Is Marxism dead?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is Marxism dead?

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

team overhead smash posted:

Lets deal with your three hypotheticals in order.

In your first scenario, a Capitalist can provide value alongside his employees. There is even a specific Marxist term used for the manner in which this typically happens, the petite bourgeoisie. However that in and of itself doesn't have any effect on whether the Capitalist exploits his employees. It is possible regardless of whether he works alongside them or not. The faulty assumption there is yours.

The second example is one I pretty much already covered in my post "there are obviously exceptions when it doesn't apply like, say, when a business is doing badly and the Capitalist pays the workers even though the business itself is haemorrhaging money". A business where the employees get paid more than they contribute to the business is one where the business is making a loss (except in the unlikely scenario where the productivity of the Capitalist is in and of itself enough to more than offset the loss of all the employees). The workers aren't being exploited, but in this scenario the business isn't running successfully and the Capitalist will want to get it to a stage where the workers are exploited as soon as possible.

Your third example is talking about use value. That is conceptually separate from surplus value. While you may consider that "This isn't often well known" Use Value is literally Chapter 1 Section 1 of Capital Volume 1 so any Marxist worth his salt will be well aware of it. The mere fact you don't seem to understand the Marxist definition of it means that I seriously doubt you know enough about Marxism to offer a solid critique and that you then further trip over terms like exploitation just reinforces this point.

Exploitation in the Marxist sense specifically refers to the extraction of surplus value. So yes, there is reason to define the extraction of surplus value to create a profit as exploitation because that is the exact definition of exploitation in Marxist terminology which is what we are using because we are discussing Marxism. It is not making an assumption, rather it is using a word to describe the exact scenario it is meant to describe.

Your argument, although you didn't intentionally make it because it seems you didn't know what exploitation actually means in the Marxist sense, is mere semantics about how really exploitation should be labelled something else because you think it sounds too mean. It is completely irrelevant to the discussion we are having. The exact same thing can be seen in your final pre-asterix point where you argue that we are making assumptions about loss-making businesses, when all we're doing is using the correct definition of a word and you are failing to understand the terminology.

Also yes, a Capitalist system is mutually beneficial just like Feudalism was mutually beneficial and slave states were mutually beneficial. Marxism takes into account the benefits that have come into being from Capitalism but it also takes into account the inequalities and flaws. That a worker accrues some benefit does not mean that he isn't simultaneously being exploited (both in the Marxist and the normal sense). The faulty assumption, again, is yours.

Just to be clear you're defending Marx's assumptions by repeating them all? That's what you're doing?

# ? Nov 11, 2014 14:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 16:14

team overhead smash: Sep 2, 2006; Team-Forest-Tree-Dog:
Smashing your way into our hearts one skylight at a time

asdf32 posted:

Just to be clear you're defending Marx's assumptions by repeating them all? That's what you're doing?

Really all you did was make a meaningless semantic arguement along with a couple of poor displays of logic, so it was less repeating assumptions and more pointing out definitions.

I get it, you don't know what any Marxist terminology means. The thing is just because you think exploitation in the Marxist should have a different name, that doesn't do anything to change or critique the process that is being described when Marxists talk about exploitation.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 14:28

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

team overhead smash posted:

Really all you did was make a meaningless semantic arguement along with a couple of poor displays of logic, so it was less repeating assumptions and more pointing out definitions.

I get it, you don't know what any Marxist terminology means. The thing is just because you think exploitation in the Marxist should have a different name, that doesn't do anything to change or critique the process that is being described when Marxists talk about exploitation.

No you don't. If you did you wouldn't think that you could defend your definitions by hiding behind them.

The names don't matter, the definitions don't matter - the underlying conclusions do.

Here is your conclusion (bold is mine):

quote:

That a worker accrues some benefit does not mean that he isn't simultaneously being exploited (both in the Marxist and the normal sense)

Defend it. If you make up a definition in the process defend that.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 14:55

team overhead smash: Sep 2, 2006; Team-Forest-Tree-Dog:
Smashing your way into our hearts one skylight at a time

asdf32 posted:

No you don't. If you did you wouldn't think that you could defend your definitions by hiding behind them.

The names don't matter, the definitions don't matter - the underlying conclusions do.

Here is your conclusion (bold is mine):

Defend it. If you make up a definition in the process defend that.

I thought I could defend my definitions by applying them appropriately.

If we are using the definition of exploitation in the Marxist sense which refers to the extraction of surplus value from a worker, then please tell me how the extraction of surplus value from workers is not exploitation. You can't and most of what you were doing was just attacking definitions rather than conclusions.

Also that's not my conclusion. You post had several points which I tackled in turn. That just happens to be part of my response to the last of your points I made. It's not the conclusion to an extended arguement which you've summarised, but rather one aspect of the post you've picked out while ignoring all the other rebuttals of your points.

It is also (to me) a fairly self-evident point that I assumed you would accept at face value without needing any further explanation and I'm not sure why you're questioning it.

Let's take the example of, say, an illegal immigrant who is being paid below the minimum wage. As a average wage labourer he is exploited economically, his wages being used to create surplus value (profit) for the business. He is exploited in the traditional sense in that he's obviously being paid extremely low and with none of the benefits of a normal worker in that situation. He benefits as he is paid.

I was trying to point out that your point about there being a benefit for the employee was meaningless because there being a benefit doesn't exclude either form of exploitation, either Marxist or general. I'm regretting mentioning general exploitation now because it is just worsening the fact that you're confusing the two types of exploitation and was really only added to show how obvious the point was.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 15:17

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

team overhead smash posted:

I thought I could defend my definitions by applying them appropriately.

You can't, that's not a defense.

My definition of exploitation is "people who wear blue hats". Yelling exploitation when a guy with a hat walks by doesn't defend the utility of that definition.

quote:

If we are using the definition of exploitation in the Marxist sense which refers to the extraction of surplus value from a worker, then please tell me how the extraction of surplus value from workers is not exploitation. You can't and most of what you were doing was just attacking definitions rather than conclusions.

Agree 100%. My definition above is what it and you can't attack it just by itself. I didn't do that.

So got it. Marx's definition is what it is just like an arbitrary equation that's been assigned to a Greek letter waiting to be proven useful. That's fine.

quote:

Also that's not my conclusion. You post had several points which I tackled in turn. That just happens to be part of my response to the last of your points I made. It's not the conclusion to an extended arguement which you've summarised, but rather one aspect of the post you've picked out while ignoring all the other rebuttals of your points.

It is also (to me) a fairly self-evident point that I assumed you would accept at face value without needing any further explanation and I'm not sure why you're questioning it.

So on the point we were discussing you took your position to be self evident? Not surprising.

quote:

Let's take the example of, say, an illegal immigrant who is being paid below the minimum wage. As a average wage labourer he is exploited economically, his wages being used to create surplus value (profit) for the business. He is exploited in the traditional sense in that he's obviously being paid extremely low and with none of the benefits of a normal worker in that situation. He benefits as he is paid.

I was trying to point out that your point about there being a benefit for the employee was meaningless because there being a benefit doesn't exclude either form of exploitation, either Marxist or general. I'm regretting mentioning general exploitation now because it is just worsening the fact that you're confusing the two types of exploitation and was really only added to show how obvious the point was.

You can't even define exploitation in the traditional sense without using the word benefit and then in the next paragraph declare benefits "meaningless" to exploitation.

Look, I don't have time for a longer response right now though I wish I did because the problem where people hide behind their own web of definitions is so fundimental when discussing ideology.

asdf32 fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Nov 11, 2014

# ? Nov 11, 2014 16:42

wateroverfire: Jul 3, 2010

Marxist exploitation is a dumb concept because capital allocation and trading do in fact generate value, which means what is stripped off as profit isn't necessarily surplus value generated by workers and therefore the QQ over MAH SURPLUS VALUE that allows internet revolutionaries to emo post about being justified in hypothetically eating the capitalists is actually baseless, at least outside specific circumstances.

Take that Marxist dogs.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 16:54

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Yeah Marx never wrote about speculation or markets, you'd have blown him away. He'd have shaven his beard and put up posters of Pinochet if you hit him with that.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 17:17

wateroverfire: Jul 3, 2010

SedanChair posted:

Yeah Marx never wrote about speculation or markets, you'd have blown him away. He'd have shaven his beard and put up posters of Pinochet if you hit him with that.

Marx wrote lots of stuff the problem is he was limited by the methods and data available in his time and also that he didn't know much about how business worked or apparently believe that knowledge would have been useful.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 17:27

team overhead smash: Sep 2, 2006; Team-Forest-Tree-Dog:
Smashing your way into our hearts one skylight at a time

asdf32 posted:

You can't, that's not a defense.

My definition of exploitation is "people who wear blue hats". Yelling exploitation when a guy with a hat walks by doesn't defend the utility of that definition.

Well you haven't said if the hat is also blue, but the main problem with your analogy is that you are some random guy so no-one cares about your definition. On the other hand exploitation is a defined term within Marxist ideology that is widely acknowledged by people who know about Marxism and that you can literally go look up on Wikipedia or what have you.

quote:

Agree 100%. My definition above is what it and you can't attack it just by itself. I didn't do that.

So got it. Marx's definition is what it is just like an arbitrary equation that's been assigned to a Greek letter waiting to be proven useful. That's fine.

Yes, you specifically did do that. "Just generally there is no reason to accept that every situation where there is profit by an owner it constitutes exploitation in the traditional negative sense."

You decided that instead of using the relevant Marxist terminology you would talk about the generic laymans definition that has no bearing on the discussion.

The majority of the post then goes on to talk about exploitation in that non-Marxist sense. For instance you make a big point about how someone who is "exploited" can get a nebulous benefit and are even you carrying this on into the current post I'm currently responding to.

The thing if you accept that exploitation is a specific process of a worker's labour creating surplus value which is taken and used by the Capitalist to create profit, this point is nonsense and has absolutely no relevance to the discussion. It can only make sense if you are using a general layman term of exploitation because otherwise even in a perfect nordic social democracy where workers get a host of benefits the process of surplus value creation (and therefore exploitation) is taking place.

You are arguing based on a wording of exploitation that has absolutely nothing to do with Marxist theory. It and everything you have posted is meaningless and irrelevant to a discussion of Marxism.

quote:

So on the point we were discussing you took your position to be self evident? Not surprising.

You can't even define exploitation in the traditional sense without using the word benefit and then in the next paragraph declare benefits "meaningless" to exploitation.

Look, I don't have time for a longer response right now though I wish I did because the problem where people hide behind their own web of definitions is so fundimental when discussing ideology.

What I said lacked clarity due to me putting it badly. In the UK we often refer to welfare as benefits so in the sentence about generic layman's interpretation of exploitation I meant it to be read as social/legal benefits such as lack of insurance, lack of regulations protecting the worker, etc. As we were already using the word benefit in a different way, that was a mistake on my part.

Correcting for that mistake, it is fairly simple, isn't it? It is easy to envision situations where someone is exploited in the Marxist sense, exploited in the generic sense and still receives some benefit from their work. Hence your argument about workers not being exploited because they receive some benefit (which is the only part of your post you have seen fit to defend) is irrelevant because the two are in no way mutually exclusive.

team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Nov 11, 2014

# ? Nov 11, 2014 17:33

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

asdf32 posted:

Just to be clear you're defending Marx's assumptions by repeating them all? That's what you're doing?

That's been the MO for the entire thread, I don't see why they would stop now.

"Marx was wrong"

"no he was right, he said so here in Das Kapital, WHY WON'T YOU ACKNOWLEDGE FACTS????"

team overhead smash posted:

Really all you did was make a meaningless semantic arguement along with a couple of poor displays of logic, so it was less repeating assumptions and more pointing out definitions.

I get it, you don't know what any Marxist terminology means. The thing is just because you think exploitation in the Marxist should have a different name, that doesn't do anything to change or critique the process that is being described when Marxists talk about exploitation.

team overhead smash posted:

Well you haven't said if the hat is also blue, but the main problem with your analogy is that you are some random guy so no-one cares about your definition. On the other hand exploitation is a defined term within Marxist ideology that is widely acknowledged by people who know about Marxism and that you can literally go look up on Wikipedia or what have you.

Yes, you specifically did do that. "Just generally there is no reason to accept that every situation where there is profit by an owner it constitutes exploitation in the traditional negative sense."

You decided that instead of using the relevant Marxist terminology you would talk about the generic laymans definition that has no bearing on the discussion.

The majority of the post then goes on to talk about exploitation in that non-Marxist sense. For instance you make a big point about how someone who is "exploited" can get a nebulous benefit and are even you carrying this on into the current post I'm currently responding to.

The thing if you accept that exploitation is a specific process of a worker's labour creating surplus value which is taken and used by the Capitalist to create profit, this point is nonsense and has absolutely no relevance to the discussion. It can only make sense if you are using a general layman term of exploitation because otherwise even in a perfect nordic social democracy where workers get a host of benefits the process of surplus value creation (and therefore exploitation) is taking place.

You are arguing based on a wording of exploitation that has absolutely nothing to do with Marxist theory. It and everything you have posted is meaningless and irrelevant to a discussion of Marxism.

What I said lacked clarity due to me putting it badly. In the UK we often refer to welfare as benefits so in the sentence about generic layman's interpretation of exploitation I meant it to be read as social/legal benefits such as lack of insurance, lack of regulations protecting the worker, etc. As we were already using the word benefit in a different way, that was a mistake on my part.

Correcting for that mistake, it is fairly simple, isn't it? It is easy to envision situations where someone is exploited in the Marxist sense, exploited in the generic sense and still receives some benefit from their work. Hence your argument about workers not being exploited because they receive some benefit (which is the only part of your post you have seen fit to defend) is irrelevant because the two are in no way mutually exclusive.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

You're seriously pulling an argument from authority to support Marxism? A theory almost noone in academic economics takes seriously today? It's been made abundantly clear that none of the Marxists ITT will be convinced of the irrelevance of the theory, and that's pretty much fine IMO, but to claim it has any serious backing today is actively false

icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Nov 11, 2014

# ? Nov 11, 2014 18:10

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

team overhead smash posted:

Well you haven't said if the hat is also blue, but the main problem with your analogy is that you are some random guy so no-one cares about your definition. On the other hand exploitation is a defined term within Marxist ideology that is widely acknowledged by people who know about Marxism and that you can literally go look up on Wikipedia or what have you.

Yes, you specifically did do that. "Just generally there is no reason to accept that every situation where there is profit by an owner it constitutes exploitation in the traditional negative sense."

You decided that instead of using the relevant Marxist terminology you would talk about the generic laymans definition that has no bearing on the discussion.

The majority of the post then goes on to talk about exploitation in that non-Marxist sense. For instance you make a big point about how someone who is "exploited" can get a nebulous benefit and are even you carrying this on into the current post I'm currently responding to.

The thing if you accept that exploitation is a specific process of a worker's labour creating surplus value which is taken and used by the Capitalist to create profit, this point is nonsense and has absolutely no relevance to the discussion. It can only make sense if you are using a general layman term of exploitation because otherwise even in a perfect nordic social democracy where workers get a host of benefits the process of surplus value creation (and therefore exploitation) is taking place.

You are arguing based on a wording of exploitation that has absolutely nothing to do with Marxist theory. It and everything you have posted is meaningless and irrelevant to a discussion of Marxism.

But no, no, no, exploitation is wearing a blue hat. Pay attention to my definition.

quote:

What I said lacked clarity due to me putting it badly. In the UK we often refer to welfare as benefits so in the sentence about generic layman's interpretation of exploitation I meant it to be read as social/legal benefits such as lack of insurance, lack of regulations protecting the worker, etc. As we were already using the word benefit in a different way, that was a mistake on my part.

Correcting for that mistake, it is fairly simple, isn't it? It is easy to envision situations where someone is exploited in the Marxist sense, exploited in the generic sense and still receives some benefit from their work. Hence your argument about workers not being exploited because they receive some benefit (which is the only part of your post you have seen fit to defend) is irrelevant because the two are in no way mutually exclusive.

And what if we have all the things you just replaced "benefits" with and we still have a capitalist earning profit? You're not even being internally consistent. Either exploitation (traditional) depends on real life things like benefits (me, sometimes you), or it depends only on the existence of profit (Marx, sometimes you).

# ? Nov 11, 2014 18:15

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Look, Ayn Rand's theories are internally consistent, therefore any criticism of them are meaningless semantic nitpicks and you cannot say she is 'wrong' in any meaningful sense

# ? Nov 11, 2014 18:22

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

wateroverfire posted:

Marx wrote lots of stuff the problem is he was limited by the methods and data available in his time and also that he didn't know much about how business worked or apparently believe that knowledge would have been useful.

Did he understand less well than Smith or Ricardo?

# ? Nov 11, 2014 18:24

team overhead smash: Sep 2, 2006; Team-Forest-Tree-Dog:
Smashing your way into our hearts one skylight at a time

icantfindaname posted:

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

You're seriously pulling an argument from authority to support Marxism? A theory almost noone in academic economics takes seriously today? It's been made abundantly clear that none of the Marxists ITT will be convinced of the irrelevance of the theory, and that's pretty much fine IMO, but to claim it has any serious backing today is actively false

No, you've misread.

People were talking about exploitation. Whether you agree with it or not exploitation is a specific piece of terminology in Marxism and has a meaning different from the conventional meaning. Asdf32 tried to form an argument based on him trying to apply the conventional meaning of the word to everyone else's argument which is pointless because it's not what anyone meant.

asdf32 posted:

But no, no, no, exploitation is wearing a blue hat. Pay attention to my definition.

Exploitation is wearing a blue hat but you don't say what colour of hat the person you accuse has. Even your lovely meaningless analogies are wrong.

Of course that is specifically the least relevant thing in the post and you didn't bother to defend how your entire arguement has been pointless.

quote:

And what if we have all the things you just replaced "benefits" with and we still have a capitalist earning profit? You're not even being internally consistent. Either exploitation (traditional) depends on real life things like benefits (me, sometimes you), or it depends only on the existence of profit (Marx, sometimes you).

I don't care about what exploitation in the layman sense though. As I have pointed out several times it is completely irrelevant to the Marxist definition that is being used throughout this thread. You might as well try and make the arguement that consumption in the economic sense doesn't actually exist because it isn't synonymous with tuberculosis.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 18:26

TheIneff: Feb 7, 2006; BEEP BOOP BEEEEEP

This is a good thread where many people will be exposed to exciting, alternative political and economic theories.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 18:29

twitter and bisted: Aug 26, 2012; I'm a crow and nothing human is avian to me

Friendly Tumour posted:

Is there any rational reason why the Marxist conception of value cannot be summed up in less than one million words?

So no one who works with their hands can criticize it.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 18:36

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

team overhead smash posted:

No, you've misread.

People were talking about exploitation. Whether you agree with it or not exploitation is a specific piece of terminology in Marxism and has a meaning different from the conventional meaning. Asdf32 tried to form an argument based on him trying to apply the conventional meaning of the word to everyone else's argument which is pointless because it's not what anyone meant.

Exploitation is wearing a blue hat but you don't say what colour of hat the person you accuse has. Even your lovely meaningless analogies are wrong.

Of course that is specifically the least relevant thing in the post and you didn't bother to defend how your entire arguement has been pointless.

I don't care about what exploitation in the layman sense though. As I have pointed out several times it is completely irrelevant to the Marxist definition that is being used throughout this thread. You might as well try and make the arguement that consumption in the economic sense doesn't actually exist because it isn't synonymous with tuberculosis.

No those two sentences were a comprehensive response to your whole post. You don't get that because you don't understand what you're saying or why you're saying it.

Though for some reason I'm going to repeat this: no one disagrees that Marx defined exploitation the way Marx defined exploitation.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 18:38

team overhead smash: Sep 2, 2006; Team-Forest-Tree-Dog:
Smashing your way into our hearts one skylight at a time

asdf32 posted:

Though for some reason I'm going to repeat this: no one disagrees that Marx defined exploitation the way Marx defined exploitation.

Yes, now follow on here to the next step of the arguement.

When people talk about exploitation in this thread in the Marxist sense, trying to rebutt their points by assuming they are talking about the layman definition of exploitation or that this definition is interchangeable is stupid, pointless and does nothing to address the point they have made.

Edit: Also you did specifically argue this at the bottom of this post because you are an idiot who tried to argue about terms you don't understand.

team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Nov 11, 2014

# ? Nov 11, 2014 18:42

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

team overhead smash posted:

Yes, now follow on here to the next step of the arguement.

When people talk about exploitation in this thread in the Marxist sense, trying to rebutt their points by assuming they are talking about the layman definition of exploitation or that this definition is interchangeable is stupid, pointless and does nothing to address the point they have made.

So the real world (layman's) definition has no bearing on the Marxist definition so it follows that the Marxist definition has no bearing on the real world then right?

# ? Nov 11, 2014 18:49

team overhead smash: Sep 2, 2006; Team-Forest-Tree-Dog:
Smashing your way into our hearts one skylight at a time

asdf32 posted:

So the real world (layman's) definition has no bearing on the Marxist definition so it follows that the Marxist definition has no bearing on the real world then right?

Different meanings of words are not always related. Consumption (the economic term) is not the same as consumption (The Ye old Fashioned name for TB) and capital (the economic term) is not related to capital (the administrative main city of a region). Yet all of these words are real and have a bearing on the real world.

Things asdf32 has learnt today: Words have multiple meanings.

team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Nov 11, 2014

# ? Nov 11, 2014 18:53

Bob le Moche: Jul 10, 2011; I AM A HORRIBLE TANKIE MORON
WHO LONGS TO SUCK CHAVISTA COCK !

I SUGGEST YOU IGNORE ANY POSTS MADE BY THIS PERSON ABOUT VENEZUELA, POLITICS, OR ANYTHING ACTUALLY !

(This title paid for by money stolen from PDVSA)

team overhead smash posted:

Yes, now follow on here to the next step of the arguement.

When people talk about exploitation in this thread in the Marxist sense, trying to rebutt their points by assuming they are talking about the layman definition of exploitation or that this definition is interchangeable is stupid, pointless and does nothing to address the point they have made.

It's kind of sad that it always comes back to this. There could be a lot of productive criticism and discussion but no instead it's let's argue about using different definitions of words forever.

Getting bogged down into semantics is such an Idealist thing to do. Proper materialists are beyond arguing about what the "true" meaning of an abstract concept like "value" or "exploitation" is :smuggo:

# ? Nov 11, 2014 18:56

team overhead smash: Sep 2, 2006; Team-Forest-Tree-Dog:
Smashing your way into our hearts one skylight at a time

Bob le Moche posted:

It's kind of sad that it always comes back to this. There could be a lot of productive criticism and discussion but no instead it's let's argue about using different definitions of words forever.

Getting bogged down into semantics is such an Idealist thing to do. Proper materialists are beyond arguing about what the "true" meaning of an abstract concept like "value" or "exploitation" is

Mostly it just boggles my mind that it takes like a dozen posts to hammer home to someone that taking someone's comment completely out of context by using the wrong definition is bad.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 18:58

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

team overhead smash posted:

Mostly it just boggles my mind that it takes like a dozen posts to hammer home to someone that taking someone's comment completely out of context by using the wrong definition is bad.

No my bad. You just want to play in your sandbox with your toys and nothing you say or do there relates to the real world.

So yeah, nothing myself or anyone else has (or could) say can hurt you there. Sorry for the confusion.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 19:18

HighClassSwankyTime: Jan 16, 2004

icantfindaname posted:

Look, Ayn Rand's theories are internally consistent, therefore any criticism of them are meaningless semantic nitpicks and you cannot say she is 'wrong' in any meaningful sense

Capitalists oppress the working class. The workers will one day say: we've had enough!! Revolution follows and workers will take over the means of production. HOWEVER, if that does not happen, capitalist oppression is blame for the worker's inability to revolt againt the capitalists... Didn't Karl Popper had something to say about this downright retarded "logic"?

:confused:

# ? Nov 11, 2014 19:32

team overhead smash: Sep 2, 2006; Team-Forest-Tree-Dog:
Smashing your way into our hearts one skylight at a time

asdf32 posted:

No my bad. You just want to play in your sandbox with your toys and nothing you say or do there relates to the real world.

So yeah, nothing myself or anyone else has (or could) say can hurt you there. Sorry for the confusion.

I'd be happy for you to criticise Marxism if that is what you had done. However all that's happened is you've made a giant semantic argument about the word 'exploitation' because you can't handle the concept of words having more than one meaning.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 19:38

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

team overhead smash posted:

I'd be happy for you to criticise Marxism if that is what you had done. However all that's happened is you've made a giant semantic argument about the word 'exploitation' because you can't handle the concept of words having more than one meaning.

No we just agreed I can't criticize Marxism.

I criticized its utility in the real world. But we agreed that those things are separate.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 19:47

Sergg: Sep 19, 2005; I was rejected by the:

Marx was a valuable contributor to the field of sociology and economics back in the 1800s when our understanding of such things was limited.

It's just like how Freud was the father of psychology but wrote a book called "On Cocaine" about how awesome Cocaine was and at least half the stuff he said was laughably wrong.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 19:52

team overhead smash: Sep 2, 2006; Team-Forest-Tree-Dog:
Smashing your way into our hearts one skylight at a time

asdf32 posted:

No we just agreed I can't criticize Marxism.

I criticized its utility in the real world. But we agreed that those things are separate.

If you criticised it's utility it wasn't in your conversation with men but feel free to repost it so we can get of this ridiculous argument about semantics.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 20:29

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

Guys I keep telling you. Just stop using the word "value" and refuse to allow pathological, ideological equivocators to drag you back into that mire. It's a Who's-On-First bit that never ends.

When they use it in the subjective sense while critiquing in the sense of Capital, don't waste time telling them they have; just use brackets to replace it with the definition they're using in their quote and move on.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 20:37

Jacobeus: Jan 9, 2013

It is actually possible to use both the "layman's" and Marxist definition of exploitation, as long as you're able to argue that Marxist definition follows from the "original" definition. In other words, Marx argues that surplus value being taken from the working class by capitalists is exploitation, because that value is is being stolen from the worker; The worker is entitled to the value they create, thus a fundamental right is being violated by this process.

An argument against that would take the form of showing that taking that value away from the worker either a) does not violate any fundamental right of the worker, b) In the end indirectly results in better conditions for the worker, because the value the capitalist accumulates is used in various ways that improves the economy, overall wealth of society, working conditions, or any number of those things.

The latter is probably a common counter argument, maybe combined with the argument that inequality is inherently A Good Thing, because it promotes incentives to work harder, and therefore the poorest are actually better off than they would be if everyone were equal (maybe pointing out something about the average Soviet citizen or something like that).

# ? Nov 11, 2014 20:53

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Jacobeus posted:

The latter is probably a common counter argument, maybe combined with the argument that inequality is inherently A Good Thing, because it promotes incentives to work harder, and therefore the poorest are actually better off than they would be if everyone were equal (maybe pointing out something about the average Soviet citizen or something like that).

Usually that rests of several assumptions about Soviet and Russian history that don't really make much sense, so the argument quickly becomes circular.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 20:58

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Aeolius posted:

Guys I keep telling you. Just stop using the word "value" and refuse to allow pathological, ideological equivocators to drag you back into that mire. It's a Who's-On-First bit that never ends.

When they use it in the subjective sense while critiquing in the sense of Capital, don't waste time telling them they have; just use brackets to replace it with the definition they're using in their quote and move on.

You're seconding the notion that the subjective version and the Marxist version have no relationship to each other? Please clarify.

Jacobeus posted:

It is actually possible to use both the "layman's" and Marxist definition of exploitation, as long as you're able to argue that Marxist definition follows from the "original" definition. In other words, Marx argues that surplus value being taken from the working class by capitalists is exploitation, because that value is is being stolen from the worker; The worker is entitled to the value they create, thus a fundamental right is being violated by this process.

An argument against that would take the form of showing that taking that value away from the worker either a) does not violate any fundamental right of the worker, b) In the end indirectly results in better conditions for the worker, because the value the capitalist accumulates is used in various ways that improves the economy, overall wealth of society, working conditions, or any number of those things.

The latter is probably a common counter argument, maybe combined with the argument that inequality is inherently A Good Thing, because it promotes incentives to work harder, and therefore the poorest are actually better off than they would be if everyone were equal (maybe pointing out something about the average Soviet citizen or something like that).

Whether that constitutes a valid criticism depends on whether there is supposed to be a relationship between the two.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 21:01

Jacobeus: Jan 9, 2013

Ardennes posted:

Usually that rests of several assumptions about Soviet and Russian history that don't really make much sense, so the argument quickly becomes circular.

I tend to agree.

asdf32 posted:

Whether that constitutes a valid criticism depends on whether there is supposed to be a relationship between the two.

Yes but the main Marxist rebuttal to that is that even if there is a relationship between the two, the fundamental rights of the worker are still violated. Marxism acknowledges that capitalism, an inherently unequal system motivated by wealth accumulation, does indeed increase the amount of wealth overall. Therefore whether or not that constitutes a valid criticism to Marxism depends on there being "no better way" than capitalism.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 22:33

team overhead smash: Sep 2, 2006; Team-Forest-Tree-Dog:
Smashing your way into our hearts one skylight at a time

Jacobeus posted:

I tend to agree.

Yes but the main Marxist rebuttal to that is that even if there is a relationship between the two, the fundamental rights of the worker are still violated. Marxism acknowledges that capitalism, an inherently unequal system motivated by wealth accumulation, does indeed increase the amount of wealth overall. Therefore whether or not that constitutes a valid criticism to Marxism depends on there being "no better way" than capitalism.

I'd say even then it doesn't. I would say Marxism largely focuses on Capitalist critique above envisioning some Communist future and I feel that critique of Capitalism is still relevant regardless of the existence (or lack thereof) of alternatives.

Even if we rule out anything other than Capitalism, as long as you feel that a Marxist analysis is a relevant one it can still allow you to analyse Capitalism and how it should be dealt with even if only in terms of what kind of Capitalism you want. Hell, how many articles were there in mainstream Capitalist magazines post financial-crash which essentially said "Marx was right because..." or "Marx is still relevant because..."?

# ? Nov 11, 2014 22:59

Vermain: Sep 5, 2006

rudatron posted:

(And again, IIA has some serious philosophical problems with it: repeated experiments have shown that human behavior about fairness does not conform to IIA).

Do you happen to have the main set of experiments (or meta-analyses, etc.) with regards to that? I'm always interested in learning more about decision making principles.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 23:22

Jacobeus: Jan 9, 2013

team overhead smash posted:

I'd say even then it doesn't. I would say Marxism largely focuses on Capitalist critique above envisioning some Communist future and I feel that critique of Capitalism is still relevant regardless of the existence (or lack thereof) of alternatives.

Even if we rule out anything other than Capitalism, as long as you feel that a Marxist analysis is a relevant one it can still allow you to analyse Capitalism and how it should be dealt with even if only in terms of what kind of Capitalism you want. Hell, how many articles were there in mainstream Capitalist magazines post financial-crash which essentially said "Marx was right because..." or "Marx is still relevant because..."?

So I can already see that this could lead to an argument over semantics, hopefully we won't have to go there. Presumably, you are referring to economic theories which, while not arguing for the replacement of capitalism, argue for more regulation and government investment and borrow Marxist ideas in order to support these arguments. I'm not really sure that I would call these theories "Marxism", though. Marxism has always been about class struggle and the inevitability of an alternative that eventually ends class struggle. While Marxism is very generalized and there are various schools they pretty much all share that same fundamental idea.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 23:52

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

team overhead smash posted:

I'd say even then it doesn't. I would say Marxism largely focuses on Capitalist critique above envisioning some Communist future and I feel that critique of Capitalism is still relevant regardless of the existence (or lack thereof) of alternatives.

Even if we rule out anything other than Capitalism, as long as you feel that a Marxist analysis is a relevant one it can still allow you to analyse Capitalism and how it should be dealt with even if only in terms of what kind of Capitalism you want. Hell, how many articles were there in mainstream Capitalist magazines post financial-crash which essentially said "Marx was right because..." or "Marx is still relevant because..."?

Marxism is actually really bad at differentiating between different types of capitalism because all the definitions assume certain inherent features of capitalism, like that trade cannot create value, or that agents of the state cannot create value. Thus, from a Marxist perspective, there can't be important differences between a capitalist country practicing free trade and one practicing autarky, or between a minimalist state and a state with a massive social welfare scheme, as long as the means of production remain privately owned.

# ? Nov 12, 2014 00:30

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Sergg posted:

Marx was a valuable contributor to the field of sociology and economics back in the 1800s when our understanding of such things was limited.

It's just like how Freud was the father of psychology but wrote a book called "On Cocaine" about how awesome Cocaine was and at least half the stuff he said was laughably wrong.

Freud's work with cocaine is probably his most evidence-based.

# ? Nov 12, 2014 01:08

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

team overhead smash posted:

If you criticised it's utility it wasn't in your conversation with men but feel free to repost it so we can get of this ridiculous argument about semantics.

It started our conversation:

asdf32 posted:

Just generally there is no reason to accept that every situation where there is profit by an owner it constitutes exploitation in the traditional negative sense. Transactions are generally mutually beneficial so the knowlege that one side "profited" tells us nothing about the other side.

Consider also that a number of other arbitrary factors are involved too. Assume we know Ford is making a profit on their cars which tells us their workers are being exploited. Can we "fix" it by distributing Ford's profits to Ford's employees? What about the employees of the suppliers which contributed the majority of the value in the cars?

Similarly you don't think a loss making company exploits? Sounds reasonable, except on second thought why would company performance impact the relationship between any single employee and their employer? Two people might be paid the same for similar work at different companies - can one be exploited and the other not simply due to external circumstances.

All of these assumptions and distinctions come along with the Marxist definition of exploitation. Few of them make any actual sense.

icantfindaname posted:

Look, Ayn Rand's theories are internally consistent, therefore any criticism of them are meaningless semantic nitpicks and you cannot say she is 'wrong' in any meaningful sense

There is an honesty to appreciate in libertarians though isn't there? When they say "Aggression" they mean it and don't retract behind a labyrinth of definitions with conveniently shifting applicability to the real world.

asdf32 fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Nov 12, 2014

# ? Nov 12, 2014 02:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 16:14

Aeolius: Jul 16, 2003; Simon Templeman Fanclub

asdf32 posted:

You're seconding the notion that the subjective version and the Marxist version have no relationship to each other? Please clarify.

jesus, you're only just noticing that "utility" and "socially necessary labor time" aren't the same thing? how many times have we had to say it, now? over how many years?

though in fairness you've absolutely exceeded my expectations

asdf32 posted:

There is an honesty to appreciate in libertarians though isn't there? When they say "Aggression" they mean it and don't retract behind a labyrinth of definitions with conveniently shifting applicability to the real world.

aaaaand nope

the socially agreed-upon definition of "aggression" presents real problems to quite a lot of libertarian argumentation.

# ? Nov 12, 2014 02:44

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is Marxism dead?

«‹›66 »