Ask a Red, Second Edition

[pi-r8]

So, as I understand it, marxists believe that capitalists make money by stealing some of the fruits of labor away from those who do the labor. This makes a lot of sense in the context of an old fashioned factory, where the capitalist can use his money to buy the factory, and then pay the workers just half the money that the capitalist makes from selling the items they make.

However, I have a hard time understanding how this makes sense in the context of a modern, service-based economy. A lot of workers these days don't actually produce anything- instead, they do a service which is necessary for others to produce everything. So, what exactly is the value of that labor?

For example, let's say that you do maintenence work on a factory. Without you, the whole factory will fall apart. So I guess you could say that the value of your work is equal to the entire value of the factory. On the other hand, since you're not actually producing anything by yourself, you could also say that the value of your work is zero. So how can you accurately put a value on this type of work?

 

[Masada]

So, what exactly is the value of that labor?

Presumably whatever someone is willing to pay for it. The rest follows from there.

 

[pi-r8]

Presumably whatever someone is willing to pay for it. The rest follows from there.

In a capitalist system, sure. But this is the "ask a red" thread, so i was wondering how that would be decided in a communist/socialist system.

 

[Masada]

In a capitalist system, sure. But this is the "ask a red" thread, so i was wondering how that would be decided in a communist/socialist system.

... I think you missed my point. What is the value of anything produced?

 

[amadeus]

A cave in the mountains, perhaps. I hear your ilk don't believe a thing called "society" exists at all, so you're free to be an individual by yourself, away form that burdensome thing we call "responsibility."

So people are basically free in the same way that they were free in Stalinist Russia.

 

[pi-r8]

... I think you missed my point. What is the value of anything produced?

Masada, do you consider yourself an expert on communist/socialist thinking? If you are, then you tell me. If you're not, then you shouldn't be answering questions in this thread.

I only know how I'd answer your question from a capitalist perspective, but that's not relevant here.

 

[Masada]

I think you missed the point again. Your original question is nonsensical to begin with.

 

[pi-r8]

I think you missed the point again. Your original question is nonsensical to begin with.

Alright then, since I'm apparently so dumb, why don't you explain it to me? You know, instead of just insulting me.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

He won't explain it here because this is not a discussion thread and he is not a socialist.

For the record, however, he is correct. There is no set value of labor, but the value of all commodities is derived from the labor required to produce or to obtain it. The original set value of labor is arbitrary, but everything derived from it is not.

 

[Bill3000]

Do you think that socialism or communism necessarily depends on the labor theory of value or is it possible to create it from a different theory of monetary value?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Socialists should play up the collective-functioning nature of corporations and portray them as the gateway to socialism. The argument for them is no longer to take power from the capitalist, because that has already been done. There it is the problem of the board of trustees and upper level management who make decisions for everyone. It is, in a way, socialism for the top and middle, and capitalism for the bottom [of the corporate food chain]. Socialists should make their arguments about extending the committee structure, or something similar, all the way to the bottom, and play up the fact that if the only stock holders in a company were the employees, and the Board actually listened to said stockholders, then we would be fairly close to a cooperative firm.

Further damage can be done by drawing the comparison between the technostructure and a planned economy. If one can work, so can the other.

However, many Marxists, dare I say most, remain in the 19th century mindset, along with many, again, I dare to say most, neoliberals and proprietarians*, who together believe that the economy consists of capitalists running private companies by their own intuition and will power, guiding their ship through the turbulent economic seas, whilst exercising his personal prerogative to distribute and keep profits as he sees fit. Both are wrong, except when speaking of small businesses, but they make up a sharp minority of economic traffic.

*In case you don't keep up on my pet names for things, this is what I and some others refer to Right libertarians as.

I thought I had better elaborate on this a bit, less I be misunderstood.

The core problem is still who controls the means of production. Yes, the individual capitalist is gone from the corporate sphere, in some companies more than others, but it is safe enough to say that he no longer matters. That he has been replaced by a committee or structure of committees is only of convenience to us because it plays up the potential of associative producers. What was once a "monarchy" has been replaced by an "oligarchy," if you will follow my meaning. The issue of real democracy remains, and make no mistake, the technostructure is a sharp minority within each corporation. It is no necessarily their responsibility as a whole which must be ousted, but rather their assumption of the old capitalist's prerogative of wealth distribution, to be accompanied by a downward extension of the committee principle.

And I do not want readers to get the idea that traditional capitalism is dead and gone. Make no mistake, that old relationship between proprietor and laborer is still alive and well, but it has become much more restricted to the realm of small businesses (much more so in the closing decades of the last century; it has made somewhat of a comeback with this whole "computer" and "internet" thing). What I am proposing is that Marxists take this new relationship into context, not that it be substituted for our traditional understanding of class and material relations.

Do you think that socialism or communism necessarily depends on the labor theory of value or is it possible to create it from a different theory of monetary value?

Contrary to what Popperists believe, LTV must not only be proved to be uncertain, it must be replaced by a fully credible and explanatory system. I do not think Marginal Utility meets that criteria, because it explains price and not value.

I see no reason why socialism could not be built upon another system of value, were the LTV proven conclusively wrong. It would not be Marxist, of course, or at least not fully so, but the invalidity of the LTV does not discredit the principles of associative production, or at least of welfare for the poor or more equal distribution of income and resources. Those are moral issues, not economic ones.

 

[Elrohir]

I seem to recall you (Cheezy) expressing before (Sorry, I don't have the link) a fondness for small, single man businesses. (I believe there was some reference to Ancient Athens, but it's so far back that I can't really recall it, so feel free to dispute any of this if it sounds inaccurate) How viable would it be to have a one man business under a socialist government, as you see it? Would it depend on the sort of work? Would it be harder, or easier than under the current system? Would taxes be higher, or would they be lower? Socialist theories seem largely to work with industrialized concerns (Or agrarian, if Maoist, if I recall correctly) but don't seem to have much to say about very small businesses such as these -- I assume that's because if the workers are being exploited under that circumstance, it's largely their own faults! I guess I'm just looking at your idea of how they would work under a socialist government, as well as any other perspectives from other socialists or communists.

 

[GamezRule]

Would natural Supply/Demand forces affect prices in a Marxist economy?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I seem to recall you (Cheezy) expressing before (Sorry, I don't have the link) a fondness for small, single man businesses. (I believe there was some reference to Ancient Athens, but it's so far back that I can't really recall it, so feel free to dispute any of this if it sounds inaccurate)

You may be referring to my discovery of the term δούλος, which means both "slave" and "employee."

How viable would it be to have a one man business under a socialist government, as you see it?

The reason I have spoken highly of it (not necessarily in favor of it, mind you) is that it is compatible with both socialism and capitalism. In a one-man business the worker owns his means of production.

Would it depend on the sort of work?

This sentence makes no grammatical sense.

Would it be harder, or easier than under the current system? Would taxes be higher, or would they be lower?

Presumably you mean on the business itself. Probably lower, as one function of their present height is to squash potential future competitors to corporations in their infancy.

Socialist theories seem largely to work with industrialized concerns (Or agrarian, if Maoist, if I recall correctly) but don't seem to have much to say about very small businesses such as these -- I assume that's because if the workers are being exploited under that circumstance, it's largely their own faults!

If it is a one-man operation, there is no exploitation. If it is a two-man operation where joint proprietorship exists, then there is no exploitation. In all other circumstances, save those where cooperative production exists, there is exploitation, and I expect them to democratize themselves.

I guess I'm just looking at your idea of how they would work under a socialist government, as well as any other perspectives from other socialists or communists.

Essentially just as they do now. That's the beauty of it.

Would natural Supply/Demand forces affect prices in a Marxist economy?

Yes.

 

[Traitorfish]

What are the specific differences between Communism and Fascism?

That Communism is a stateless society, while Fascism is an ultra-statist one. The former aims at the full liberation of the individual, the latter at the total subsuming of the individual into the Nation-State.

 

[Gogf]

A cave in the mountains, perhaps. I hear your ilk don't believe a thing called "society" exists at all, so you're free to be an individual by yourself, away form that burdensome thing we call "responsibility."

Okay, so you can spout obnoxious pseudo-rhetoric about how everyone who disagrees with you is a morally corrupt fool all you want, but the fact of the matter is that there are plenty of smart people who believe in society and responsibility and yet want to live in a capitalist system. Are you seriously not okay with other societies existing that are different from your own?

 

[Traitorfish]

pseudo-rhetoric

...Is not a word.

 

[Gogf]

...Is not a word.

Correct. It's actually two words.

 

[Whomp]

Cheesy--we've talked a bit about a number of things through pm. "Gales of creative destruction" being one of the tenets of capitalism.

Let's talk about the internet, the "gales of creative destruction" it exacts and how it places the individual at the top.

On the one hand you have "Anonymous" which some would call a form of "disorganization". There's no CEO, no Prime Minister, no leader. It's like a pack of piranhas with no leader or direction until something attracts the school and they attack in unison. Something communal and powerful. However, there's not always agreement within the pack and even where members of "Anonymous" attack each other for their cause. I wonder how you overcome dissent when it appears "Anonymous" is here to stay? Maybe this not in a "chan4 kind of way" but I find it difficult to believe you will get everyone to "buy in" into your philosophy. Capitalism allows for dissent and even allows for forms of communism within, if people so choose. Can you allow capitalism within your construct?

There's also the issue of the truth of the internet and technology. The traditional means of a production based economy is a thing of the past. What I mean by that is if you have to be told what to do then it can be outsourced or automated. So it's either you can do something that I can't or I can get from someone else or I pay less. So it boils down to either I have something different, am better or do it cheaper. The latter is not an attractive option.

Today, if I can create order from chaos by connecting, creating, innovating and making things happen then I become indispensable and create value. If I have to wait for someone to tell me what to do then I've lost the opportunity to create value. I believe this is why organizationally many have turned the organizational hierarchy upside down since bosses lose value if they can't show value. Instead it goes client first, then relationship manager, manager, his manager etc. I'm not sure this type of "individualism" fits within your construct either.

 

[innonimatu]

There's also the issue of the truth of the internet and technology. The traditional means of a production based economy is a thing of the past. What I mean by that is if you have to be told what to do then it can be outsourced or automated.

Really?

Does it get outsourced to outer space aliens?

Did we invent Artificial Intelligence already?