EPTRousseau & Marx - Page 2
| Blogs > thot |
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
| ||
|
airtown
United States410 Posts
On April 13 2012 11:38 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: Arguments of radical individualism/liberty are always so silly. They forget that humans aren't purely individualistic creatures - we are social and dependent creatures, too. The most libertarian government wouldn't prohibit people from (voluntary) forming relationships, but rather allow people to form communities and relationships in the way they see fit. So I don't see what your argument is. On April 13 2012 11:38 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Absolute liberty is nothing but an illusion of a value, a complete and total absence (of constraint), a pure nihilistic nothingness (if you read Sartre and think about it a little, you realize how silly the claim to absolute freedom really is). The important question isn't whether hypothetical situations conform to some philosopher's definition of "absolute freedom", but rather whether extensive government intervention in people's lives will make them more or less free. | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
Communism creates a "classless" society, but a classless society is not guaranteed to resolve any of the classical problems that are entailed by capitalism - poverty and wealth, market failure, worker safety issues, etc. So let us lay Marx' theory to rest, while admitting that he does have some fairly good points about the problems of capitalism. Yes, indeed, the laborer is exploited, and more capital can be generated with greater exploitation. But it's not clear that communism would be any better for the laborer. For even if the government owns the means of production, it too is quite capable of exploiting a laborer as well. | ||
TheGeneralTheoryOf
235 Posts
| ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
On April 14 2012 10:51 airtown wrote: The most libertarian government wouldn't prohibit people from (voluntary) forming relationships, but rather allow people to form communities and relationships in the way they see fit. So I don't see what your argument is. I don't get where you're assuming that my post is in any way talking about the state. It's a clear response to the OP (which is not about government, but about society's general influence). On April 14 2012 10:51 airtown wrote: The important question isn't whether hypothetical situations conform to some philosopher's definition of "absolute freedom", but rather whether extensive government intervention in people's lives will make them more or less free. There are several issues with your claim here: A) the insinuation that "hypothetical situations" and "absolute freedom" are idle/insignificant musings - they are extremely relevant questions in the role of government and they way it perceives rights among its people. Such ideas were a critical influence in shaping the American Constitution, and as statements like Nathaniel Niles' sermon demonstrate, the way we conceptualize liberty has a crucial way in which we perceive the government's role in protecting it. de Tocqueville's analysis of America, and the debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists all show that this dynamic is often at work. B) "The important question [is]...whether extensive government intervention in people's lives will make them more or less free" - I have no idea where you're pulling that question out of, because it's certainly not given in the OP, nor even a necessarily evident question in the named authors' works, because there are many issues in question in both Rousseau and Marx's works: government intervention is only one singular dimension of these broad works, and it's a supreme fallacy to assume that that is the only question to be discussed. C) Even if it were an important question presented here, you're missing the essential dimension of how government intervenes and why government intervenes, which shapes the type of intervention that occurs. These, of course, are more significant questions that come prior, as "whether X ought to be done" is contingent upon questions that answer what "X" is (how government intervenes) and the consequences of X (why government intervenes). | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On April 14 2012 12:40 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Voluntary interactions are inherently unexploitative. On the market everyone gets paid what they put into the process - their marginal product. I don't deny that Marx' labor theory of value is for the most part incorrect and outdated. Certainly there is no juridical wrong done in a voluntary exchange, where an employer buys the the worker's labor power. But there is a question of how voluntary this exchange actually is. For it would difficult to affirm that employers never exploit their workers. | ||
|
TheGeneralTheoryOf
235 Posts
| ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On April 14 2012 12:59 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: I don't understand... does your boss threaten to murder you if you don't show up to work? A person has to work to have resources for subsistence. One may not have a choice in the employer he goes to, or other employers may offer no better contracts. When the choice is to die of starvation or work for this employer, then yes, I suppose the threat of death does loom upon you if you do not show up for work. Now if one has no other choice but to go to this employer, and this employer recognizes that, he can indeed exploit and take advantage of the workers predicament. The idea of a just voluntary exchange relies on the presupposition of choice - but where there is none, there is no voluntary exchange. One may be forced to accept working conditions and wages that are completely unacceptable - forced in the sense that the alternative is, in fact, death, or conditions not much better than death. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 14 2012 12:50 shinosai wrote: I don't deny that Marx' labor theory of value is for the most part incorrect and outdated. Certainly there is no juridical wrong done in a voluntary exchange, where an employer buys the the worker's labor power. But there is a question of how voluntary this exchange actually is. For it would difficult to affirm that employers never exploit their workers. There's nothing out of date about the labor theory of value. labor theory doesn't claim that alienation of surplus labor is a "juridical wrong," it just describes the interaction. Also, the contemporary Marxist tradition doesn't really endorse any of the political tenets of Soviet communism. Most contemporary Marxists are more influenced to the Frankfurt School, which was deeply critical of the soviets. edit: Communism creates a "classless" society, but a classless society is not guaranteed to resolve any of the classical problems that are entailed by capitalism - poverty and wealth, market failure, worker safety issues, etc. No, no, the classless society has the solution of these problems as its precondition. | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On April 14 2012 14:25 sam!zdat wrote: There's nothing out of date about the labor theory of value. labor theory doesn't claim that alienation of surplus labor is a "juridical wrong," it just describes the interaction. Also, the contemporary Marxist tradition doesn't really endorse any of the political tenets of Soviet communism. Most contemporary Marxists are more influenced to the Frankfurt School, which was deeply critical of the soviets. The problem with labor theory of value is that the value of products is actually not determined by labor. Hence disregarded by most modern economists. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 14 2012 14:27 shinosai wrote: The problem with labor theory of value is that the value of products is actually not determined by labor. Hence disregarded by most modern economists. You're equivocating on your definition of value. What you are talking about is exchange value. The labor theory of value describes all of this. | ||
|
TheGeneralTheoryOf
235 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 14 2012 14:32 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: If I spent 1000 hours building a raft, is it worth more than a raft which someone spends 5 hours constructing? What if my raft doesn't float and theres does? Value is entirely subjective. The labor theory of value is intended precisely to rigorously answer this question. You should know what it is you are talking about before you bash it. The labor theory of value does not posit a naive correspondence between amount of labor required to produce a commodity and the exchange value of that commodity. | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On April 14 2012 14:29 sam!zdat wrote: You're equivocating on your definition of value. What you are talking about is exchange value. The labor theory of value describes all of this. I'll go into more detail when I have time - busy life and all. Got to head to bed, later. I will, of course, be back, to describe Marx' labor theory of value, and then explain its problems in greater detail. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 14 2012 14:33 shinosai wrote: I'll go into more detail when I have time - busy life and all. Got to head to bed, later. I will, of course, be back, to describe Marx' labor theory of value, and then explain its problems in greater detail. I look forward to reading your critique! | ||
|
TheGeneralTheoryOf
235 Posts
You should know what it is you are talking about before you bash it. So the labour theory of value does not claim that value is determined by the amount of labour in producing a product? Or if it does, then is my worthless raft (that needed quite a bit of labour to be produced) not worth more than the easily produced superior raft? After the automobile was invented, horse and buggies were worth much less (since cars are superior to them). But the labour needed to produce them did not decrease. Labour is irrelevant to the value of a good. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 14 2012 14:38 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: So the labour theory of value does not claim that value is determined by the amount of labour in producing a product? Or if it does, then is my worthless raft (that needed quite a bit of labour to be produced) not worth more than the easily produced superior raft? After the automobile was invented, horse and buggies were worth much less (since cars are superior to them). But the labour needed to produce them did not decrease. Labour is irrelevant to the value of a good. Value is defined as "socially necessary labor time." The "socially necessary" part is explicitly there to account for the kinds of things you are saying. You think Marx didn't think of all that? It's an important part of his theory. | ||
|
TheGeneralTheoryOf
235 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
When the car is invented, the labor that is required to make the horse and buggy becomes no longer socially necessary. edit: this might help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_necessary_labour_time edit redux: I also want to say that nobody is a "classical Marxist" anymore.. | ||
|
TheGeneralTheoryOf
235 Posts
| ||
| ||
