Is workable Communism really impossible?

Post Reply New Topic

The LTV - which actually has its origins with Adam Smith, not Marx - states that labour is the source of all value, including capital. The cash being exchanged as wages, was expropriated, as was the capital the worker is using (from other workers who made that capital).

Making Marx a more Conservative economist and heir to Smith than say Mises or Friedman. crazy world.

That is the paradigm Marx was attacking, the worker is co-erced into selling his labour as he has nothing else to sell, the tradesman, labourer are "stripped of their halo" as Marx put it and are relegated to a mere wage slave.

When people can buy or make their own tools and buy the raw materials they need for themselves they can open their own businesses. The poor oppressed proles do not have their own means of production. Marx proposed that they take those by force. That is theft.

If a person is willing to sell his labor in exchange for money or other goods he is not enslaved or oppressed. You can argue he has made a poor business deal, but he has not been wronged.

ruveyn

Your answer

So what? If a person is willing to sell his time and energy for cash and is not coerced into doing so, that is his choice and his business. Labor for cash is the very antithesis of slavery.


You labor under the delusion that all should receive his "just share" and that you are the proper judge of what is just. Dream on!

ruveyn

They did have their own means of production at one time, during the era of cottage industry. That was taken by force during the Enclosures, along with their feudal tenure rights and land. The nobles used the profits to set up their second + sons as mercers (no other means of support since primogeniture made them ineligible for inheiritance), who got rich exploiting newly homeless weavers etc. The money just kept accumulating in fewer and fewer hands, by virtue of the ability to use money to exploit, gathering more money from labour, kind of a vicious cycle - except that it did allow for economies of scale and technological progress by virtue of the fact of private collectivization in the factories, rather than individual production out of small shops and homes, as had occurred in the feudal system.

Ethically it doesn't stand up to scrutiny too well; it's mostly just the same old same old, the advantaged using their advantages to exploit others and take from them. In the end it still comes down to violence, the capitalists take their share of value that others produce and any who might try to keep the full proceeds of their work would find themselves in jail for theft. It never really changed much from feudalism, even if you account for the fact that a small few may rise to the same ranks - this was possible under feudalism too, for exceptional cases (and that's all it is still, exceptional cases).

Practically speaking, however, it's allowed for a good deal of progress nonetheless. And the search for alternatives has been futile and bloody - the way forward has always seemed to be the people challenging the elites for a small recompense here and there, which have accumulated over time (not unlike how peasants developed out of serfs, by establishing small concessions over time).

no, surplus value is appropriated. otherwise, how else can the owner profit from the labour of the worker?

The Prole chose not to charge for the "surplus value". A bad business decision and so it goes. Or maybe it is not a bad decision. If he attempted to charge for the surplus value, no one would hire him.

Your average Prole is mostly interested in beer and football games. Making rational business decisions is not his strong point.

ruveyn

Marx isn't a more conservative economist. He's just closer to classical economics in some of his assumptions, but he's a radical economist by most metrics. I mean, Marxism isn't just classical economics plus left-wing ideology, but rather it is more of it's own sub-branch, something Friedman really does not have. Even Mises didn't go so far in his context. (And both Mises and Friedman lived in a context where the LTV was often considered debunked, making the conservative point odd, because then we'd have to say that the closest historical heir will be the more conservative figure)

There are billions of functioning communist communities all over the planet right now. They're called families.

The question is a matter of scale.

Extended families less so; the local community / tribe even less so and beyond that negligibly so. The further from the atomic family the more dysfunctional and corrupt communism becomes.

Blood is thicker than ideology.

ruveyn

I think LTV was "Debunked" not because it was "wrong" but because it made Marx "right".

I put the truth value words in quotes because economics like all social "sciences" does not have the rigor to produce anything better than conjecture especially dear old Mises with his just so stories.

The idea is that if LTV holds than Marx is right so lets destroy LTV.
In the context of the cold war.

No, the problem with LTV is that it doesn't account for scarcity, while marginal value does.

The context of its creation is a little too perfect.
Although Supply and demand can be made to fit into a Marxist context.
One could argue that the marginal profit also "belongs" to the worker.