“Marxian exploitation is the exploitation of people’s lack of understanding of economics.”
Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia
The impetus for this post was provided by two graduate students here at the University of North Florida, Doidos and Solta (not their real names). In conversation with Doidos and Solta, I was made aware that both were rather sympathetic to Marxist political philosophy. (In fact, on more than a few occasions, Solta even claimed to be a Marxist.) Despite their proclamations of capitalism’s “exploitative and oppressive structure” and their palatable antipathy toward the economic system that permits them the luxury of academic pursuit, it occurred to me that neither Doidos nor Solta knew a thing about Marxian economic theory. E.g., they could not for the life of them provide me with a coherent encapsulation of Marx’s conception of surplus-value, use-value, or exchange-value, all of which are necessary for his theory of exploitation. I could only conclude that, for them, “exploitation” and “oppressive” were indicative of a facon de parler rather than an understanding of a political-economic theory. Therefore, it is my hope that both Doidos and Solta read this post (though I am confident that neither will) and listen to the accompanying lecture. Even if they dismiss the critiques of Marx contain herein, perhaps they will learn a bit about their patron saint’s economic thought.
In his famous four volume treatise on political economy, Capital, and his earlier pamphlet, Wage Labour and Capital, Karl Marx claims to have uncovered capitalism’s fundamental “laws of motion” and attempts to show that the capitalist mode of production is, essentially, exploitative. Per Marx, capitalist exploitation will inexorably prompt crises under whose weight the capitalist system will collapse and from which the proletarian revolution will eventually come. As he states succinctly in the Communist Manifesto:
“The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.”
The soundness and validity of the economic analysis in Capital and Wage Labour and Capital is imperative, in that, without it, the Marxian theory of exploitation and by hypothesis the so-called inevitable proletarian revolution become vacuous theoretical constructs. In nuce, without his economic theory, the entire Marxist program is impotent. Naturally, then, the question becomes: Is the analysis in Capital (1) sound- that is, does it cohere with known market phenomena- and (2) valid- that is, is it neither inconsistent nor fallacious?
Unfortunately for Marx, his analysis is neither sound nor valid. Indeed, he premises his theory of exploitation upon a defunct theory of value: the labor theory of value espoused by the classical economists. (It should not go without being noted that Marx borrowed heavily upon not only the economic theory of the classical economists, but also upon their sociological theory; this, however, may be deferred to another post.) Moreover, Marx’s analysis simply does not conform to known market phenomena. It is not for me, however, to elucidate Marx’s theoretical shortcomings, because I could say nothing that has not already been said (however, I will note two items below). In the 1880s and 1890s, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk published Capital and Interest (the first volume in 1884 and the second volume in 1889; the third volume followed posthumously in 1921) and Karl Marx and the Close of His System (1896), wherein he shows, in a rather careful and incisive analysis, that Karl Marx not only failed to uncover capitalism’s “laws of motion” (to be sure, he was largely ignorant of the workings of the free market), but also evidenced an astounding amount of intellectual legerdemain: at various points in Capital, Marx employs circular reasoning, begs-the-question, and imprecisely defines and then freely uses many terms in order to derive the desired conclusion.
What may be worse, Marx willfully neglects evidence that seems to confound his analysis (I have in mind here two examples [there are, of course, many more]: (1) the fact that between 1780 and 1870, real wages, and by extension the standard of living, for English laborers increased appreciably [Floud and Johnson, 2004; Mokyr, 1999; Lindert and Williamson, 1983; Crafts, 1985; Ashton, 1954]; and (2) the value of commodities not produced by labor, such as diamonds, production processes, organizational plans, etc. [to the latter, (2), the idea is quite contradictory to the Marxian labor theory of value when one considers that labor does not give value to diamonds, rather diamonds give value to labor].)
In the lecture linked to presently, Dr. Richard Ebeling, currently professor of economics at Northwood University and former president of the Foundation of Economic Education, first presents Karl Marx’s theory of value and exploitation and then Bohm-Bawerk’s criticism:
Ashton, Thomas S. “The Standard of Life of the Workers in England, 1790–1830.” In Friedrich A. Hayek, ed., Capitalism and the Historians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954.
Crafts, Nicholas F. R. British Economic Growth During the Industrial Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Floud, Roderick, and Paul Johnson, eds. The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Britain. Vol. 1: Industrialization, 1700–1860.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Lindert, Peter H., and Jeffrey G. Williamson. “English Workers’ Living Standard During the Industrial Revolution: A New Look.” Economic History Review 36 (1983): 1–25.
Mokyr, Joel, ed. The British Industrial Revolution: An Economic Perspective. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1999.
I’m not sure whether or not there are any Marxists still left in economics. We kicked them out of the economics departments, now if now the philosophy departments would as well. (Don’t they still have odd problems, i.e. the transformation problem?)
Although in principle I agree with you, I think you are using a cannon for a pea-shooter problem. What they consider exploitation is more to do with, I imagine it to be so, at least prima facie exploitation. That is to say when the fruits of the laborer are taken away from him and he is given an ‘unfair’ wage.
I know you will press on what does ‘unfair’ mean…franky, I don’t know what a suitable definition would be, if any even could. That said unfair is closely related to notions of justice which itself is a very difficult term to define. What I can affirmatively say is that I *know* injustice and unfairness when I see it. I come to this conclusion by means of intuition or common-sense or a combination of both.
When you present economic arguments against Marxists, at least lay Marxists like our short-term friend in Philosophy of Democracy, you are shooting way over their head and don’t address their concerns of fairness.
I think my point is similar to Edgar’s but without the hostility towards Marxists. I think many people who call themselves Marxist do so because Marx is the chief rallying point against capitalism which is an extremely exploitative economic system. I don’t see any point in showing how Marx’s economic analysis is wrong, of course its wrong, but I’ve always taken seen the question of alienated labor and the exploitativeness of capitalism to be the major insights of Marx’s philosophy. And of course I benefit from the exploitative system I’m far from convinced that it economics need be as exploitative for me to live a reasonably comfortable life–which I think was also one of Marx’s points.
I would agree with Dan. I think the fact that a lot of people, myself included, who don’t understand HOW the economics of capitalism work – from a scientific perspective, i.e. – are at least able to see that in general, it is probable that there is another mode of existence/life, apart from, or at least a variation of, capitalism that produces better living conditions than we currently face.
Your argument is valid, but I believe that you only highlight the very problem Marx was addressing: that is, that just because people like myself and others don’t understand how the economics of capitalism work doesn’t mean we can’t make an argument against current social relations from a Marxist perspective (especially given the amount of particularly humanitarian concerns in his earlier works). It seems evident that there are major social/material issues in the world today (i.e. unfair hourly wages, physical destruction of planet, child labor, etc.); I don’t need an economics degree to see these very real conditions and they seem to cause concern in me (in fact, I think a degree in economics would only hamper my ability to see the practical consequences of capitalism). I believe what Marx was suggesting is that if the current living conditions are the result of a particular type of economic system, and the current conditions are undesirable, why not alter the economic system in order to achieve better results? (For Marx, this goal was the mysterious state of communism). The social/material implications of capitalism on human relations was a main concern of Marx before he got into the technical/scientific economic aspect of it. So when people like myself are making arguments against capitalism from a Marxist perspective, it is from the humanitarian aspect of his works and not so much the economic.
Have you read any Dewey? Dewey, I believe, best expresses what Marx implied (italics) even if not what he actually said (italics).
Edgar,
Contrary to your impression, Marxian economists are not an extinct species. In academic and private institutions the world over, Marxists conduct economic research and produce papers which are published in various journals, such as: Capital & Class and Rethinking Marxism, to name only two (there are more). Once we countenance other academic disciplines, e.g., sociology, political science, aesthetics, history, literary analysis, and, of course, philosophy, it becomes obvious that Marxism remains a vibrant school of thought.
My antipathy towards Marxism aside, I do not wish to “kick” Marxists (or anyone else for that matter) out of any academic department, if for no other reasons than: (1) I simply value venues that promote a free exchange of ideas and (2) many Marxists critiques are not without merit and, what is more, I have come to respect the work of many Marxists: Jon Elster, the late G.A. Cohen, and John Roemer, to name just a few.
Dan,
(1) “I think many people who call themselves Marxist do so because Marx is the chief rallying point against capitalism which is an extremely exploitative economic system.”
I agree with the main clause of your sentence, but not the relative clause. One may claim capitalism is an “extremely exploitative economic system” without much difficulty, but to substantiate the claim one needs a sound and coherent theory of exploitation- the development of which is rather difficult- lest one’s claim of exploitation becomes an arbitrary emotional ejaculation and thus fails to track the reality of economic interactions.
“I don’t see any point in showing how Marx’s economic analysis is wrong, of course its wrong, but I’ve always taken seen the question of alienated labor and the exploitativeness of capitalism to be the major insights of Marx’s philosophy.”
(2) “I don’t see any point in showing how Marx’s economic analysis is wrong…”
As my response to Edgar shows, Marxian economics remains an active field of research which deserves consideration and, when necessary, refutation.
(3) “… of course its wrong…”
Of course it is wrong? Hundreds of Marxist economists would beg to differ.
(4) “… I’ve always taken seen [sic] the question of alienated labor and the exploitativeness of capitalism to be the major insights of Marx’s philosophy.”
(2) and (3) when conjoined to (4) seem to entail a contradiction. How is it that Marx’s theory of the exploitation and alienation of capitalism can be “wrong” yet at the same time reveal capitalism’s essential exploitative and alienating nature? To be charitable, I will assume that you have not contradicted yourself and that (2) and (3) should be understood at face value and that my misunderstanding begins at (4). It seems to follow, then, that when you say capitalism is “exploitative” and “alienative,” you do not and can not mean Marxian exploitation and alienation. Therefore, you intend to ascribe to “exploitation” and “alienation” a different meaning entirely. In which case, I refer you back to my response to (1), the requirement for a coherent theory of exploitation. I do not request that you provide me with a detailed theory; no, rather, I worry that I do not comprehend what you mean when you claim capitalism is an exploitative system (let alone an “extremely exploitative economic system”).
I have before your comment intended to address in a forthcoming post the conviction of many that an alternative to the capitalist economic system may provide a standard of living as good (if not better) for most (if not all) individuals. In brief, I will argue (a) there exist two (and only two) choices: socialism and capitalism; (b) the former comes in various forms and has been called by various names, while the latter is unique; and, lastly, (c) capitalism is not only the most efficient means by which to arrange economic activity, but also, under socialism, rational economic calculation is impossible.
Mark,
“I believe what Marx was suggesting is that if the current living conditions are the result of a particular type of economic system, and the current conditions are undesirable, why not alter the economic system in order to achieve better results?”
Marx largely failed at identifying the causes of the more or less poor current living conditions of the masses in the industrializing West. E.g. I reference you to his analysis of the repercussions of repealing the infamous Corn Laws:
“The campaign for the abolition of the Corn Laws had begun and the workers’ help was needed. The advocates of repeal therefore promised, not only a Big Loaf (which was to be doubled in size) but also the passing of the Ten Hours Bill” (Capital, Vol. 3).
Marx feared that the capitalists wanted cheaper food so they could offer cheaper wages (workers would be able to buy food for less and thus would require less remuneration in order to sustain their bodily existence) and increase profits. The absurdity of this position should be evident. (Let us not forget real wages were increasing across the board for laborers at this time, and thus their standard of living was increasing by leaps and bounds [see the citations in the main post].) It was David Ricardo and other proponents of the free market who helped bring an end to a famine that killed millions in Ireland. I could multiply examples of Marx’s blunders endlessly if you would like.
I should add that Marx opposed the repeal of the Corn Laws for the reason stated above.
Aaron,
1) I don’t think you need a coherent theory of exploitation. I find it prima facie obvious that capitalism not only exploits labor but worse exploits the resources of already desperatelty poor countries so as to keep them poor. I don’t see why one has to go about and make much of an argument for this and I don’t think that this is tied to emotions (I thought emotivism was long dead). But I will say that I think this because of two fairly easy standards to monitor: the wealth gap of capitalist countries and the amount of people who needlessly go hungry.
2&3) By Marx’s economic analysis I just mean his empirical economic analysis. Of course its wrong (as our own economic analysis will some day be wrong) because its out of date.
4) I don’t think exploitation or alienation as Marx understood them require an accurate empirical model. One can still understand and even undergo these phenomena even if the empirical facts are off.
I do agree with your last paragraph to me, but of course the quality of living of those who are richest will diminish (probably by too great an amount for them to stomach).
This isn’t Mark…. and I’ll respond later.
-Solta
Dan, if your theory is not coherent at the very least then I’d say it is garbage. How can an incoherent theory have any good predictive power? You open the door to astrology, psychoanalysis and other pseudo-sciences.
‘I don’t see why one has to go about and make much of an argument for this…’
I’d say that whenever you are ready to make big claims that you should have an argument ready to back it up. I always thought that to be the hallmark of Philosophy.
If your theory keeps running into empirical refutations, then perhaps the theory is crap and should be left behind.
Edgar,
I didn’t say I didn’t have a coherent theory, I said I don’t need a coherent theory of exploitation. Isn’t it obvious to you that (some of) the wealthy are that way because of the suffereing of many others less fortunate? Isn’t it obvious to you that though the wealthy are sustained by the labor of others, many of those laborers have difficutly providing for themselves? And isn’t it obvious to you that this is wrong because at the very least people suffer needlessly? I’ve actually been to ‘developing’ nations and seen this, and its obvious to me that they are in this condition because of exploitation.
I don’t think I need much of an argument because its simply an empirical fact that most of this world lives in varying degrees of poverty and that this is so because of the economic system that is employed. I don’t know anyone who would even argue against that. That I call this exploitation is just labelling the thing what it is. What really is debatable with what I said? If there is something I’m happy to go over it further.
I don’t see an empirical refutation with what I said about exploitation (at least no one has raised one). Also, your closing line is a bit hasty since a) no one has actually refuted what I said about exploitation and b) its just a bad hermeneutical method. Marx is still relevant and important even if he has empirical problems because what he says is still true in some way.
Aaron,
To address your initial post:
It is true that I have “palatable antipathy toward the economic system that permits [me] the luxury of academic pursuits”. Two things come to mind: 1) is this the only type of economic system (which to me means little more than the means of perpetuating bodily and intellectual existence) that would allow me to attend school? No other social arrangements are possible? 2) LUXURY! HA! Academic pursuits to me are merely one way to twiddle my thumbs as I float through this existence here on Earth. There are many other ways to do this, but I wouldn’t call them “luxuries” by any stretch of the imagination… to call it a luxury is to assume that in the end of all my “academic pursuits” my life will be more valuable than it would have been without them, at least in reference to others’ lives. This is something that I do not believe.
Second, “Marx largely failed at identifying the causes of the more or less poor current living conditions of the masses in the industrializing West.”
Great. He failed at identifying the causes; however, and most importantly, he did not fail to identify the actual conditions which mark the presence of a capitalist economy – or at least an economy in which those who “work” the hardest are often benefited the least (most often without their knowledge of this, thank cable television for providing stimulation to prevent this). His identification of the practical effects of this certain type of social relations (what you refer to as “capitalism”) is quite appropriate. His mistake, indeed, was trying to trace these effects back to their causes, to explain them (as you do) utilizing very scientific and technical methods and terms. What he should have done, and what other anarchists since have done (e.g. Dewey, Goldman, Zinn) is start by looking around at the social/material conditions of the world and suggesting ways we might improve them. Don’t blame them on capitalism, but indeed try to change them in ways which promote better conditions. True,to do so requires an understanding of past relations, especially those called “capitalistic” – but it does not require we DEFINE all aspects of capitalism.
I’m sure this doesn’t make sense, but would gladly clarify…
Also, 1) I’m not sure what your point in all this is? Are you trying to prove “Marxists” are wrong? Why don’t you ask those living in poverty all over the world if they are content with their lives, or if there are conditions they would like to see improved. Marx’s main concern was changing the world, not explicating it in terms the populace can’t understand. 2) Have you read any Dewey? Do you know much about pragmatism?
Dewey was an anarchist?
I wouldn’t label him an anarchist, but his conception of a creative democracy (and his philosophy in general) certainly embraces anarchical conditions
Dan,
“I don’t think you need a coherent theory of exploitation. I find it prima facie obvious that capitalism not only exploits labor but worse exploits the resources of already desperatelty (sic) poor countries so as to keep them poor. I don’t see why one has to go about and make much of an argument for this and I don’t think that this is tied to emotions (I thought emotivism was long dead).”
Yes, a coherent theory of exploitation is necessary, and for the following reasons:
Too often individuals employ the term “exploitation” (and its cognates) to describe a state of affairs as if (a) the term’s meaning is known, (b) its moral nature established, and (c) what follows from (a) and (b) is clear; notwithstanding your appeal to obviousness, neither (a), (b), nor (c) are, in fact, the case. Indeed, the term has been used by so many ideologically diverse individuals to describe most every form of social interaction, that one would be right to infer that, more often than not, “exploitation” operates as a general pejorative. Thus, it seems prudent to conclude claims of exploitation have their origins in more or less irrational emotional responses than they do in reasoned considerations. (I should like to add that your remark regarding emotivism is immaterial to my present claim. By “emotional,” I mean one’s claim of exploitation is emotional in much the same way one’s will to believe in God may be emotional, not that propositions asserting claims of exploitation are without truth value; to the contrary, frequently they do have a truth value, viz., they are false.) This is problematic because then one finds oneself arguing from one’s subjective moral intuitions, which often lead one into contradictions and confusions, and thus the solutions the “prima facie obvious” insights are otherwise thought to offer and maintain are guarantees of continued philosophical and social disorder rather than remedies to moral dissension.
“I don’t think I need much of an argument because its simply an empirical fact that most of this world lives in varying degrees of poverty and that this is so because of the economic system that is employed.
Poverty is an ambiguous term which depends upon a malleable measurement threshold that differs per one’s geographical situation. How to define the concept is complex and would take us too far afield, however I would agree that there are many who live in absolute poverty (poverty by any measure) and that poverty depends largely upon the economic factors that happen to prevail. With that said, your claim that “most of this world lives in varying degrees of poverty” is factually incorrect. According to the World Bank, as of 2007, 21.5 percent of the world’s population lives in poverty (see, for example http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/0,,contentMDK:20153855~menuPK:373757~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:336992,00.html). I should also like to add that, according to the most reliable measurements, world poverty has decreased steadily since the industrial revolution.
“That I call this (the above) exploitation is just labelling (sic) the thing what it is.”
Let’s not beg the question. One does not empirically observe an exploitative state of affairs, rather, one interprets a state of affairs as exploitative. Therefore, one must have a theory of exploitation before one may make ascriptions of exploitation. Consider a close, though not precise, analogue: the concept of length. In much the same way the operations by which we measure length should be precisely specified so as to ensure the accuracy of distance measurements, e.g., so too should measurements of exploitation be precisely specified so as to ensure the accuracy of our ascriptions of exploitative state of affairs.
If, then, you wish to claim some state of affairs is exploitative, you will have to do the following:
(1) Provide a theoretical framework of exploitation. That is, and abstractly, when x and/or y occur, because of z, exploitation obtains.
Then, and only then, can you determine a state of affairs to be exploitative, subscribe the means by which exploitation can be properly rectified, and, without causing further (and perhaps greater) wrongs, right past wrongs. Furthermore, until a theory of exploitation is given, it seems to me one cannot show that one’s claims of exploitation do not cohere with reality; one cannot test that which is ambiguous (ergo the need for operational definitions). Therefore, I must conclude that your claims of exploitation are incoherent until proven otherwise. If you feel so inclined, provide me with, and it need not be too detailed, your conception of exploitation and we can analyze whether the “capitalists” are exploiting whomever you wish to identify. You will have to do more than merely claim it is “prima facie obvious”. (I would like to emphasize: Marx offered a theory of exploitation; however, it has been proven to be in error. Thus, you cannot be using his conception, yes?)
Setting that aside, let’s address the two standards by which you identify exploitation: (1) the wealth gap of capitalist countries and (2) the amount of people who needlessly go hungry.
First, to (1), the fact that there exists a difference between the incomes of A and B tells us nothing in and of itself. Unless one were an end-state egalitarian (i.e. at any point in time everyone must have the same amount of everything), one would require further information in order to determine whether the unequal distribution was unjust. For instance, one would have to consider why A possesses more wealth than B and thence judge it just or unjust, whether judgment was made according to moral criteria, spiritual criteria, or according to Lockean principles.
Furthermore, the absolute range between the highest and the lowest incomes also in and of itself means nothing. Take, for example, the following two scenarios: (i) A and B possess 50 and 30 units of wealth, respectively, and hence the wealth gap equals 20 units; (ii) C and D possess 15 and 5 units of wealth, respectively, and hence the wealth gap equals 10 units. If one took nothing into consideration except the total range, one would have to assert (ii) represents the more just scenario, despite the fact that the poorest in (i), B, is twice as wealthy as the richest in (ii), C. In other words, one must calibrate one’s analysis for relative versus absolute wealth disparity. The example is directly analogous to capitalist societies (I) and non-capitalist societies (ii). The wealth gaps in capitalist nation-states may be relatively very high (compare Bill Gates to me), but absolutely, the poorest here are often better off than the richest there.
Second, to (2), a bit of research will reveal that in nations that do not have a functional free-market, such as Zimbabwe, North Korea, etc., incidences of hunger (measured by malnutrition and starvation) are far greater than in Western (more or less) free-market societies. Moreover, as I mentioned in my last paragraph to you in my previous reply, I expect to argue in the near future that (1) the free-market is the most efficient mean by which to organize economic activity and (2) rational economic calculation is impossible under socialism, and thus, as a society adopts more socialistic practices, a corresponding decrease in economic productivity ensues, which, of course, means less food, which, of course, entails more hunger.
Solta,
You’re up next; I expect to reply to you tomorrow.
P.S. Thank you for engaging me on this issue; it’s fun.
Aaron, I want to sincerely thank you in forcing me to be more precise and careful with what I say than I would normally do so on a blog.
I haven’t much for a theory of exploitation other than this: I take it that exploitation of labor is when a (fulltime) workforce fails to make a living wage because such labor is unskilled and/or readily available. So, right off the start “living wage” is vague, so let’s say a person is unable to afford necessary commodities in life for at least themselves (and perhaps even their immediate family). Necessary commodities include food, shelter, clothes but also those commodities necessary for them to keep their job: transportation, healthcare, daycare etc. I would also think that someone’s employment should pay more than the bare minimum to afford necessary commodities but then we are stretching exploitation to an unrecognizable word.
Now, I will admit that this is hardly a well-thought through concept and so of course it has flaws and there might be parts of what I say that one might disagree with me. Also, I will admit that you are correct that poverty is decreasing not increasing. However, I would like to note that this accounts for only the poorest and its not obvious to me, anyways, that those just above the poverty line are few or are even able to consistently provide for their needs. But I will concede the ambiguity of poverty makes such analysis difficult. I will also note that, unless I’m missing something, the link you gave me was about how poverty was measured (fair enough) but did not have the statistic you quoted. Also, they seem to have only measured poverty in the developing world (surely this phenomenon exists in the developed world too. By the way, according to the University of California’s Atlas of Global Inequality, most of the people in the world are poor: http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/income.php
Oh, and the “fact” that poverty has decreased since the industrial revolution is incredibly problematic since it wasn’t until after the industrial revolution (and after the colonization of Africa and Asia) that we can even claim a similar economic standard for the world.
Let’s return to my standards: you’re right–the first is not obviously problematic and I do not think that everyone should have the same. The income gap I point to to show the disparity of wealth only works if certain commodities necessary for life are unavailable to those on the wrong side of the income gap. As it happens, until the healthcare bill takes effect, anyways, healthcare is unavailable to nearly 1/6th of the American people. That, of course is not the majority, but a frighteningly large number anyways. The point is that wide income disparities often suggest that commodities are inaccessible and that the poor will remain poor.
Initially I was going to protest that the countries you used as examples were simply unfair since Zimbabwe barely has an economy and North Korea’s troubles are at least partly to do with trade blockades are other poor decisions that have to do more with ideology than with economy. But, Zimbabwe actually has a greater income gap than the United states (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html) and no statistics are available for North Korea–but I think its safe to assume that those close to the dear leader are fairing much better than the poorest 10-20%. Also, look at the countries with the lowest income gaps and you will notice many affluent countries among them. And again, even China who has a fairly large gap (but less large than the US) is doing better economically than the US. Lastly, I don’t understand what you mean by “socialist” since this word nowadays is used for any economic policy that people disagree with. For instance, do you consider countries with social safety nets to be socialist? So is Germany a socialist country? or the UK? I’ll note that the pound and the euro are fairing better than the dollar (and have been for some time).
I don’t know what your future post will say but I will say two things already make such a claim suspicious: (1) all economies are mixed economies. (2) The implementation of social welfare programs and regulations on the free market have actually aided economic activity and quality of life in countries that are otherwise free market economies. This would suggest to me that regulations on a free market as well as social safety nets are what makes free market economies desirable. I admit, I don’t entirely know what you mean by “rational economic calculation” but surely you don’t believe that economic activity is completely rational?
Solta,
Whether you consider academic pursuits luxuries or not is really beside the point. It is enough to note that you receive the benefits of the productive forces of the free-market such that you need not struggle for daily sustenance. However, it goes beyond that, doesn’t it? Not only has the fruits of a more or less free-market alleviated you of your primal struggle for existence, it has also provided you with the many amenities with which I am sure you populate your life. Also, since you really do not value academic pursuits- seemingly not as much as the suffering of others- why did you waste so much time in them? You could have used your time to aid others. If I had to anticipate your rejoinder, you may claim you find no enjoyment over living a relatively easy life while others, whose exploitation makes your easy existence possible, suffer. (Didn’t you write a paper concerning this topic?) My re-rejoinder would simply be: then why are you so (relatively) rich? You are free to lower your standard of living for the sake of others. (You could have also picked a more marketable degree, nursing, for instance, so you could earn more money and then give it away, and provide your services to those in need without cost in your free time.) If society should be organized according to the egalitarian rules that you promote, then so should personal behavior, in particular your own.
“Great. He failed at identifying the causes… ” If you concede that Marx’s analysis failed to uncover the causes of what he perceived to be the poverty and exploitation of the workers, then most of your paragraph does not follow, observe:
“… he did not fail to identify the actual conditions which mark the presence of a capitalist economy… “ Yes, he did. Per above, on your own admission, his analysis did not accurately identify exploitative economic interactions. Furthermore, your comment neglects the point of the original post, which in your second paragraph of your first reply you concede is valid (ref. the fifth and penultimate paragraphs), in which you have contradicted yourself (if you have not, please clarify).
“… an economy in which those who “work” the hardest are often benefited the least… “
So, what, now you want to revive a defunct labor theory of value? Hardest? One man’s labor is marketable to another only insofar as another subjectively deems it to be so. That is, only insofar as another is willing to trade goods and/or services for labor (to include, but not limited to, money). Labor possesses no inherent value. If you disagree, spend the next 15-hours digging a big hole and then spend another 15-hours filling it in, then see how successful you are when you demand payment for your “hard work.” (I should note that Marx’s labor theory of value was more complicated than this, but as equally erroneous.)
“What he should have done, and what other anarchists since have done (e.g. Dewey, Goldman, Zinn) is start by looking around at the social/material conditions of the world and suggesting ways we might improve them.”
Economics, to quote Lionel Robbins, is “the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses” (An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science). Thus, unless and until one understands the fundamental laws of nature that are at work (Marx failed in this respect as well), one will only do more harm than good when trying to make changes (observe Lenin, Mao, Hugo Chavez, Juan Peron, to name only a few).
With that said, I do share your desire to see the status quo altered. Though, obviously, not for the same reasons that motivate you. Contrary to what you may believe, I do not find the current state of affairs optimal. I find corporations, churches, trade unions and governments alike violating the property rights of individuals the world over; and what is more, often in the name of so-called capitalism. I am confident that what you classify as capitalism is not what I consider capitalism. As you are probably aware, I am an anarchist, albeit of a different sort than you, and I view the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services (the trading of property rights in things, if you will) an essential element of anarchism. This places me in direct opposition to, say, Emma Goldman. Furthermore, I do hold to a theory of exploitation (one I will present in a forthcoming post): the exploitation of those who produce wealth by those who steal it (ironically, there is great similarities with the Marxian story).
To close, my goal in the original post was to (1) point out that there are those (you) who adopt a Marxian political philosophy without understanding the implications of doing so; (2) to bring attention to Marx’s invalid theory of exploitation and value and show that without it, much of what follows likewise becomes invalid; and (3) to bring attention to the work of Eugen Bohm-Bawerk and introduce the blog’s readership to the Austrian school of economics and political theory, an introduction that will continue in forthcoming posts.
Thanks Aaron, I look forward to responding in due time!
“Whether you consider academic pursuits luxuries or not is really beside the point. It is enough to note that you receive the benefits of the productive forces of the free-market such that you need not struggle for daily sustenance.”
– True… but did I have any say in how these circumstances/ processes developed or any say in how they progress? No; no practical say.
“However, it goes beyond that, doesn’t it? Not only has the fruits of a more or less free-market alleviated you of your primal struggle for existence, it has also provided you with the many amenities with which I am sure you populate your life.”
–– True, I would argue there are other systems/ ways to produce these same amenities. But it’s not capitalism per se; i.e. it’s not some ideology that gave me these things. It’s just the random interactions and doings of random people at random times all over the world.
“Also, since you really do not value academic pursuits- seemingly not as much as the suffering of others- why did you waste so much time in them?”
— I didn’t say I didn’t value them; I just said that, from an objective standpoint, my life is of no greater value than another person’s just because I have completed more years of school.
“You could have used your time to aid others.”
—- I did; and I do, plan to use my education to help others.
“You are free to lower your standard of living for the sake of others.” – I do live a very low standard of living.
“(You could have also picked a more marketable degree, nursing, for instance, so you could earn more money and then give it away, and provide your services to those in need without cost in your free time.)”
— why would I buy into a system I don’t support?
“If society should be organized according to the egalitarian rules that you promote, then so should personal behavior, in particular your own.”
— True, I spend a lot of my money on alcoholic beverages and other “amenities” but really, as I said, I live a pretty low standard of living. No where near those in actual poverty, but I sympathize with them and further I don’t think it’s up to me to solve poverty, I think it’s up to those who reaped the benefits to pay proportionally (i.e. I pay a little, because I don’t reap that many benefits; WalMart on the other hand, should have to pay way more for the destruction they have caused)
“If you concede that Marx’s analysis failed to uncover the causes of what he perceived to be the poverty and exploitation of the workers, then most of your paragraph does not follow, observe:
“… he did not fail to identify the actual conditions which mark the presence of a capitalist economy… “ Yes, he did. Per above, on your own admission, his analysis did not accurately identify exploitative economic interactions.”
— Clearly you are not familiar with Dewey or pragmatism in that respect.
Further, “The laborer becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, indeed, the more powerful and wide-ranging his production becomes. The laborer becomes a cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increase in value of the world of things arises in direct proportion the decrease of value of human beings. Labor does not only produce commodities, it produces itself and the laborer as a commodity , and in relation to the level at which it produces commodities…the more the laborer labors, as well as the more powerful the alien, object world which he builds over himself becomes, the poorer he himself becomes, that is, his inner world, as he owns less. The same thing occurs in religion. The more people place in God, the less they retain in themselves. The laborer places his life in the object; but now it [his life] belongs less to him than to the object. Therefore, the more this happens, the more deprived of objects the laborer becomes. What the product of his labor is, he is not. Therefore, the greater this product, the less he becomes…. The result, therefore, is that the human being (the laborer) does not feel himself to be free except in his animal functions: eating, drinking, and reproducing, at his best in his dwelling or in his clothing, etc., and in his human functions he is no more than an animal. The animal becomes human and the human becomes animal. Eating, drinking, and reproducing, etc., are real human functions. However, in the abstraction which draws them out of the circle of other human activities and makes them the sole activity to be sought after, they are animal….”
—-Words I am sure you are quite familiar with. Do they not accurately describe the results of capitalism, even if he failed to identify accurately the causes? Again, you must not be familiar with Dewey.
“… an economy in which those who “work” the hardest are often benefited the least… “
So, what, now you want to revive a defunct labor theory of value? Hardest? One man’s labor is marketable to another only insofar as another subjectively deems it to be so. That is, only insofar as another is willing to trade goods and/or services for labor (to include, but not limited to, money). Labor possesses no inherent value.”
— Again, technical mumbo-jumbo. Do you not see the point I am trying to make? Capitalism – or at least whatever system we have today – creates more wealth for people like Lindsey Lohan, George Bush, American idol people, etc… Is the work they do “hard”? I.e. what do they do to either A) provide physical sustenance for themselves or other? B) provide intellectual progress/growth for themselves or others? I do think labor is valuable insofar as it helps the individual himself eat/drink/live physically. This is not subjective.
“If you disagree, spend the next 15-hours digging a big hole and then spend another 15-hours filling it in, then see how successful you are when you demand payment for your “hard work.”
—– I’m not sure I understand this analogy. I wouldn’t expect payment for such work. Actually, I probably wouldn’t perform such work at all. Unless it promised a return in physical stamina which I felt could best be achieved by digging a hole for 15 hours and then filling it back up.
“Thus, unless and until one understands the fundamental laws of nature that are at work (Marx failed in this respect as well), one will only do more harm than good when trying to make changes (observe Lenin, Mao, Hugo Chavez, Juan Peron, to name only a few).”
—– Fundamental laws of nature??? Please tell me you’re referring to physical laws of materials and not laws of economics or other ideologies…
…”I view the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services (the trading of property rights in things, if you will) an essential element of anarchism.”
–– What is property? If it’s something created to make life/social dealings easier, then recognize it as that, but not as something inherently valuable.
“To close, my goal in the original post was to (1) point out that there are those (you) who adopt a Marxian political philosophy without understanding the implications of doing so”
— In response to 1) I do not adopt a Marxian political philosophy because I don’t understand completely the economics behind it. I may have mistakenly (and abruptly) in the past claimed to be a Marxist, but that is not entirely true. I do value his explication of social/material conditions under capitalism (as EFFECTS and NOT as CAUSES—see Dewey, pragmatism). I also value his passion about the topic. And his idea that philosophy only talks, the point of life is to actually change. His suggestions of communism – as I take them at least – were extremely open-ended, something else I greatly admire and in which you can see signs of anarchism. Yes, he got older, and more technical, and his views changed. I value early Marx; but I am a Deweyan, if I am “anyone”.
Lastly, Aaron, I really never thought I would share any of your views… ever. But I now see some similarities