Spain 1936-1937: Libertarian Socialism & Its Demise

[Nebula815]

TheStatutoryApe,

I typed quite a long answer for you, but alas it was lost during submittion. I do not have time now to type it again, I have urgent work to do now. But I will answer you tomorrow, I should have more time tomorrow.

Always type long answers in a separate file and save it then copy-paste it to post it. This way if the computer or website messes up and the post doesn't get through and is lost, you just need to copy-paste again.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The current neo-mercantilism I was describing is different in nature then the formal British system. It is a world economic system where third world countries have a certain kind of economic relationship with the west (exploitative is a subjective judgement, but in my opinion, it applies) that is kept in play by currency controls, international economic bodies, and in the most extreme cases, direct intervention in countries' political affairs by intelligence agencies.

I'll leave alone the topic of militarist and black ops intervention. I am certainly aware that it has happened and there is proof but many such allegations seem to be, at the least, over inflated by conspiracy theorists.
As far as the mark of corporatism left on third world countries I am somewhat torn. I have an aversion to corporatism but I can not deny that it can have, and has had, positive effects despite its rather poor track record in the industrialist era. Starbucks for instance, despite their resistance to the general global trend towards "Fair Trade" practices, builds schools and hospitals and generally attempts to renovate and improve the local communities that they rely upon. The investment of corporations can help third world countries become more developed and stimulate their economies. They can also destroy the environment, exploit local resources, and simply cut and run after completely mutilating any hope for local sustainability.
The US government does not exactly sanction this but they facilitate it through corporate protectionism and turning a blind eye to the practices of corporations that do not directly effect the US keeping an eye on the economic "bottom line".

By the way, I didn't realize you were a Bad Religion fan. My absolute favorite band.

Yes. One of my absolute favourites as well. It may seem odd considering some of my arguments but I am actually far more of a "pinko" liberal than I usually come across. I am really just often more critical of those whom I principally agree with.

 

[Al68]

Firstly, I didn't misspell 'labour'. You are using the Americanised spelling.

LOL, I was joking.

I understand your point and it does make some sense. But at the same time, you do not have access to the products of your own labour (unless you're self employed), your employer owns it and you get a wage instead.

The employer doesn't own it originally. Of course the employer owns it after the worker sells it to him.

For a socialist, having access to your own labour means collectively owning a factory so that the workers genuinely own the products of their labour.

"Genuinely own" means the right to sell as they see fit, not as seen fit by others (socialists).

A factory worker certainly does not have the right to control, sell or trade the products of their labour under capitalism.

Yes, they do, socialists seem very confused about this. You can't claim that the fact that the worker is free to sell his labor product to another (genuinely owns) means that the buyer "really" owns it because he owns it after he bought it from the original owner. That's just faulty logic.

 

[Al68]

The only way for a libertarian socialism to work is for members of the collective to adopt willingly socialism. Otherwise, it collapses on its own weight because there is no way to enforce socialism while remaining true to libertarian ideology. It's possible, but I sincerely doubt it would remain cohesive as people who work hard would willingly leave the collective and allow the lazy to fend for themselves, which they are not inclined to do. There would of course be no way to force the hardworking to stay because that would be authoritarian rather than libertarian.

It's currently practiced in the U.S. by many groups, with no objections from anyone. The real issue seems to be that many use the term "libertarian socialism" to refer to socialism that is clearly not libertarian just to mislead people.

 

[Al68]

Remember that the utopian communism imagined by Marx was a stateless society.

Yes, Marx imagined that everyone in the world would do exactly what he wanted completely voluntarily, once every single person only realized how right he was about everything. Then they wouldn't have to be forced against their will anymore. How do you spell "delusional" in the UK?

I'll have to repeat myself - this is all only true within a capitalist framework. Protection of property rights are considered by socialists as detrimental to the freedom of the majority of the population.

Yes, socialists believe that using collective force to usurp the individual decisions free people make for themselves enhances their "freedom". And protecting the right of individuals to own their own labor (transfer property) is, as you say, "detrimental to the freedom of the majority of the population".

They believe they can make up for the stolen liberty by providing privileges, and take advantage of the fact that the word freedom can be used as a synonym for either 'privilege' or 'liberty' in order to claim that freedom is increased. In fact, they are just using a bait and switch tactic by switching between one definition and another. (Or switching between "negative" and "positive" freedom as some would say.)

It's like giving someone a package of golf balls after castrating them, then claiming they increased the number of balls they have. Technically true, but painfully misleading.

 

[Al68]

Interesting, Marx was concerned exactly about this issue. He calls means of production "dead labor" (since once there was a need of somebody's labor to produce it.) In most cases people who labor to produce means of production do not own them.

In free market capitalism, the laborer does own them originally. Marx conveniently ignored the fact that the reason that the means of production are later owned by someone else is because the laborer chose to sell the product of his labor, as was his right as the original owner.

Marx rejected the right of laborers to choose to sell the product of their labor as a "commodity". The fact is that the product of a person's labor is a valuable commodity, and rightfully belongs to each laborer to sell or trade as he sees fit. That's what the word ownership means. Contrary to Marx's delusional logic, it doesn't mean "society" making the decision they think is best for each individual and using force to usurp the individual's own decision.

 

[Galteeth]

Yes, Marx imagined that everyone in the world would do exactly what he wanted completely voluntarily, once every single person only realized how right he was about everything. Then they wouldn't have to be forced against their will anymore. How do you spell "delusional" in the UK?.

It is equally "delusional" to assume that people won't use the coercive force of government for their own ends. Any political or moral philosophy posits an unrealizable ideal. People may think murder is wrong, and accept that murder will never go away. I don't think Marx's ideal is so far fetched, it's just totally alein given the current cultural context. Many of the values of modern society that we take for granted would seem absurdly idealistic to a person living in a different time period with a different cultural context.

 

[Galteeth]

I'll leave alone the topic of militarist and black ops intervention. I am certainly aware that it has happened and there is proof but many such allegations seem to be, at the least, over inflated by conspiracy theorists.

While a controversial wikipedia page, this provides good resources to start if you're interested in the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_US_regime_change_actions

 

[vici10]

Laws were instituted through the national constitution to prevent the government from exploiting and harming citizens through attainder, ex post facto laws, land takings, ect. Citizens of territories under US control are equally protected by federal law and have the ability to petition for statehood to receive full representation in government under the same formula as any other state.

Do I understand you correctly that the only difference between American and English capitalism is that America has a constitution and England does not?

Merely stating that it does not have a negative connotation does not make it true. Nor would continuing with the explanation that it is part of a "labour theory of value" seem to refute my assertion that it is a value judgment.

Ok, it seems that you judge about something that you do not know. To avoid it I suggested you to read Marx, thinking that original would be better than someones interpretation. But I understand not everyone has time to read big books. I did not want to go into details but it seems that I will have to. I apologize for the long answer but Marx used the book to describe his ideas.

My answer consists of two parts. One historical, in which one can see how originally class of capitalists (owners of means of production) and wage-workers have appeared. Second part is abstract part of Marx's labour theory of value.

Marx was not interested in abstract society of free individuals freely exchanging the product of their labour between in each other, mainly because such abstract society never existed.
He studied real, but not imaginary capitalist society. Marx wanted to understand a transition from feudalism to capitalism. How do peasants become wage-workers and what is capital? For this purpose he had to look at history of most advanced capitalist country at his time, England, also the place where he lived.

So how do peasants become wage-workers? According to Marx,first, they should be stripped off any means of subsistence and hence will have no other choice but sell their labour:

“The immediate producer, the labourer, could only dispose of his own person after he had ceased to be attached to the soil and ceased to be the slave, serf, or bondman of another. To become a free seller of labour-power, who carries his commodity wherever he finds a market, he must further have escaped from the regime of the guilds, their rules for apprentices and journeymen, and the impediments of their labour regulations. Hence, the historical movement which changes the producers into wage-workers, appears, on the one hand, as their emancipation from serfdom and from the fetters of the guilds, and this side alone exists for our bourgeois historians. But, on the other hand, these new freedmen became sellers of themselves only after they had been robbed of all their own means of production, and of all the guarantees of existence afforded by the old feudal arrangements. And the history of this, their expropriation, is written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire.” http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA27.html#Part VIII, Chapter 27

One should remember that “serf was not only the owner, if but a tribute-paying owner, of the piece of land attached to his house, but also a co-possessor of the common land.”
And eviction of peasants from their lands by landlords happened, this process was called enclosures. During Tudors, landlords understood that they can profit more from sheep farming because of foreign demand for wool. These enclosures resulted in loss of common rights and destruction of villages.
Another big wave of enclosures happened during 18th and the beginning of 19th century. But they happened not because of demand for wool but because of revolution in agricultural methods of production. These enclosures were enforced by newly created parliamentary acts called “Inclosure Acts”. This is what Marxs say:

“To say nothing of more recent times, have the agricultural population received a farthing of compensation for the 3,511,770 acres of common land which between 1801 and 1831 were stolen from them and by parliamentary devices presented to the landlords by the landlords? “

Remark: It does remind me transition to capitalism in Russia, mainly privatization, the same pattern – stealing public property from the people.

This process of removing peasants from the land served two purposes: enriching landlords and forcing peasants to become wage-workers. So we can see how owners of means of production and wage-workers have appeared. And of course one needed a force of state for these things to happen.

Now to the abstract part. For starter: assume we have a person who worked and produce means of production(machine). Now there is a second person who used this machine to produce final product. Both of them spent the same amount of labour. How should they divide the final product? Why should owner of means of production claim a bigger part than a worker? Why not half-half?

Now to the labour theory of value. Marx, following Adam Smith and Ricardo, assumed that under perfect competition the commodities are exchanged according to amount of labor that is necessary to produce them. Now assume that the person has money say 100,000 that he got after exchanging of the products of his labor. On this money he hires managers to organize factory for him that will produce cloths for example. Managers hire workers and buy machines. Workers work on the machines till the machines depreciate. Final product is cloths. Marx argues that machines by themselves cannot produce value. One needs human labour for it. The value of final product is equal to the value of the machines (amount of labor of the owner) plus the labor of the workers. Now the owner sells the product, gets the money, pays to workers and managers according to amount of their labor spent. What is left? The value of the machines, the original 100,000. He could have his clothes, but capitalist did not want clothes he wants profit. So how does one make profit? He could not pay less for the machines, because everything is exchanged by its labour values, he could steal it, but it is dangerous since property is protected by law. The only way is to cheat on workers. And the way to do it according to Marx is by prolonging working day,but paying the same amount of money as for the original working day.

This is in nutshell the simplified Marx's labour theory of value. So we have seen that people did not became wage-workers voluntarily. The first capitalists did not accrue means of production by hard work, but through violence and force of the state. And the last, even if one imagine that capitalists got their capital through hard work, according labour theory of value they still have to cheat on workers to get profit.

 

[mheslep]

Remark: It does remind me transition to capitalism in Russia, mainly privatization, the same pattern – stealing public property from the people.

Though I agree privatization in Russia was poorly handled, the term of the term 'Public' property in the USSR is a euphemism. It was controlled and exploited by those in power, not the public in any real sense.

 

[mheslep]

[Marx:]“To say nothing of more recent times, have the agricultural population received a farthing of compensation for the 3,511,770 acres of common land which between 1801 and 1831 were stolen from them and by parliamentary devices presented to the landlords by the landlords? “

I find Marx misguided here; he presents an argument against socialism not capitalism. Here the government, the domain of the socialist, unfairly appropriates land (if true?) and he blames the capitalists for the wrong.

 

[vici10]

I find Marx misguided here; he presents an argument against socialism not capitalism. Here the government, the domain of the socialist, for unfairly appropriating land (if true?) and he blames the capitalists for the wrong.

So you say these laws were not created by landlords for their own benefit and that they did not become capitalists?

Capitalism cannot exist without government. It needs laws to create private property from the public one. It has to use violence to protect it. Government creates laws that benefit capitalsts. To say that government is separate from the capitalists is to live in dream world of imaginary capitalism. They are in bed with each other. Without government capitalism would never come to place. Without government spending for example capitalism would be in danger of collapsing, since it is too volatile.For all these thing one just have to look into history.

 

[mheslep]

So you say these laws there not created by landlords for their own benefit and that they did not become capitalists?

I say that over powerful governments misappropriate things all the time and it has been to the personal benefit of the commissars as well as landed interests. What we should have in place to prevent this are strong property rights preventing governments from taking, which it seems to me if they had been in this case would have prevented any 'parliamentary' games from taking those lands.

Capitalism cannot exist without government. It needs laws to create private property from the public one.

Agreed. Though to be more precise free markets and capitalism require the rule of law, not just government.

Without government spending for example capitalism would be in danger of collapsing, since it is too volatile.For all these thing one just have to look into history.

I don't accept that. Current events don't prove the case. US capitalism got along just fine for a century plus with only insignificant amounts of government spending. I assert what's dangerous (for collapse) is crony capitalism, where the government and the large wealthy private interests become too interdependent.

 

[vici10]

I say that over powerful governments misappropriate things all the time and it has been to the personal benefit of the commissars as well as landed interests.

It is true. If one looks into history, most governments represented interests of a ruling class. Capitalist society is not an exception, and capitalist government represents interests of dominant capital.

What we should have in place to prevent this are strong property rights preventing governments from taking, which it seems to me if they had been in this case would have prevented any 'parliamentary' games from taking those lands.

You forget that parliament in England was created by the demand of landlords to protect their interests. So it is not strange that landlords created laws to remove peasants from the land and declare this land their private property.

I don't accept that. Current events don't prove the case. US capitalism got along just fine for a century plus with only insignificant amounts of government spending.

Besides current events, there was great depression and robber barons.

There is a graph as a food for thought at page 4 in the following document. The graph is about role of government in volatility of capitalism.
http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/254/02/nitzan_y6285_01_pe_handout_2008_9.pdf"

I did not know how to link just a graph. Is it possible?

I assert what's dangerous (for collapse) is crony capitalism, where the government and the large wealthy private interests become too interdependent.

I agree that crony capitalism is dangerous but not for collapse, it is bad for the rest of population. And it is seems to me that capitalism was always crony. It is difficult for me to think of period in history that it was not so.

 

[mheslep]

I did not know how to link just a graph. Is it possible?

Yes, but a bit cumbersome. In your PDF reader cut and copy the graphic of interest to your computer disk via pasting to paintbrush, powerpoint or similar utility. Save in a common image format (pnf,gif, etc). Then you have the option of either directly attaching the graphic to the end of your post as a thumbnail, or uploading it instead to http://tinypic.com/ or similar storage site where you can then directly insert the graphic into your post using the ... tags.

 

[mheslep]

Yes, but a bit cumbersome. In your PDF reader cut and copy the graphic of interest to your computer disk via pasting to paintbrush, powerpoint or similar utility. Save in a common image format (pnf,gif, etc). Then you have the option of either directly attaching the graphic to the end of your post as a thumbnail, or uploading it instead to http://tinypic.com/ or similar storage site where you can then directly insert the graphic into your post using the ... tags.

Like so:

It is unclear to me how this adds to the discussion. We want GDP growth vs govt spending graph I believe. Looking at spending percentage of GDP in times like the depression is almost a divide by zero error - doesn't tell us anything useful.

 

[vici10]

Yes, but a bit cumbersome. In your PDF reader cut and copy the graphic of interest to your computer disk via pasting to paintbrush, powerpoint or similar utility. Save in a common image format (pnf,gif, etc). Then you have the option of either directly attaching the graphic to the end of your post as a thumbnail, or uploading it instead to http://tinypic.com/ or similar storage site where you can then directly insert the graphic into your post using the ... tags.

Thanks mheslep, next time I will do so.And thank you for putting the graph, appreciated.

It is unclear to me how this adds to the discussion. We want GDP growth vs govt spending graph I believe. Looking at spending percentage of GDP in times like the depression is almost a divide by zero error - doesn't tell us anything useful.

I was talking about volatility. Volatility is always dangerous.
Both graphs are useful. From graphs it seems that from 1880-1945 there is high volatility in growth and unemployment. It was interesting to see that with increased government spending volatility decreased dramatically. It says something about role of government in capitalist system.

 

[mheslep]

And it is seems to me that capitalism was always crony. It is difficult for me to think of period in history that it was not so.

Per my knowledge of US history, as a matter of degree cronyism was much less of a problem before the depression era new deal. Yes blatant cronyism existed, as it does everywhere. However, the US government was tiny before the New Deal in comparison to the private sector. Washington, DC was a sleepy backwater town. Spending resources to buy off politicians got special interests much less of a return, and I expect it was the rare enterprise that funded someone to go lobby the government. Now the reverse is true. Now entire industries are utterly bound up with government for the their creation and continued livelihood, and most businesses employ lobbyists either directly or via a membership in some association that does it for them. Edit: in other words, the US has progressed towards socialism, perhaps closer to the national socialism kind of 30's Germany rather than Lennin's Russia.

 

[mheslep]

Thanks mheslep, next time I will do so.And thank you for putting the graph, appreciated.



I was talking about volatility. Volatility is always dangerous.
Both graphs are useful. From graphs it seems that from 1880-1945 there is high volatility in growth and unemployment. It was interesting to see that with increased government spending volatility decreased dramatically. It says something about role of government in capitalist system.

That's not my reading of the graph. Per capita government spending has never exceeded in real terms (until perhaps just recently) that which was spent in the 30s/40s.

In any case, I think other factors are more important. I assert one of the most important discoveries of the 20th century has been the realization of the importance of stability in the money supply. I credit the lack of such stability to be partly responsible for the many short term panics of the last century, and its presence for the lack of them in the last fifty years.

 

[vici10]

Per my knowledge of US history, as a matter of degree cronyism was much less of a problem before the depression era new deal. Yes blatant cronyism existed, as it does everywhere. However, the US government was tiny before the New Deal in comparison to the private sector. Washington, DC was a sleepy backwater town. Spending resources to buy off politicians got special interests much less of a return, and I expect it was the rare enterprise that funded someone to go lobby the government. Now the reverse is true. Now entire industries are utterly bound up with government for the their creation and continued livelihood, and most businesses employ lobbyists either directly or via a membership in some association that does it for them. Edit: in other words, the US has progressed towards socialism, perhaps closer to the national socialism kind of 30's Germany rather than Lennin's Russia.

Robber barons, trusts? But you are right, capitalism is developing, going global and needs stronger government.
It seems that you hatred toward government blinds you. It seems that you think that government = socialism. It is not very scientific definition. Socialism is relatively recent phenomena, governments existed for thousand years.

Another comment, national socialism has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is international by its nature. You remember the famous slogan of socialists: "The workers of all the world, unite!"

But I agree with you, it does look like America slowly goes to fascism. Kind of scary.

 

[Nebula815]

Capitalism cannot exist without government. It needs laws to create private property from the public one. It has to use violence to protect it. Government creates laws that benefit capitalsts. To say that government is separate from the capitalists is to live in dream world of imaginary capitalism. They are in bed with each other.

Capitalism does not need government. Free-market capitalism needs a government to enforce laws. But capitalism can function without government. Drug traffiking, illegal gun sales, the sex trade, identity theft, all those illegal businesses function outside of any laws.

And businesses only get into bed with government when government seeks to regulate and control them. Because when government seeks to regulate industry, industry will seek to regulate the government.

Without government capitalism would never come to place. Without government spending for example capitalism would be in danger of collapsing, since it is too volatile.For all these thing one just have to look into history.

Free-market capitalism is not volatile without government spending. It functions best with limited government implementing light, but efficient regulation.

Besides current events, there was great depression and robber barons.

The current crises was a good deal because of government intervention, not due to the lack of it. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's collapse helped trigger much of the initial collapse.

On the Great Depression, again, this was a direct result of government intervention. Had the government done nothing, it would have at most been a normal, standard recession.

I agree that crony capitalism is dangerous but not for collapse, it is bad for the rest of population. And it is seems to me that capitalism was always crony. It is difficult for me to think of period in history that it was not so.

Of course capitalism has croynism, but you can structure it with a free-market, system of laws, democratic government, etc...in order to cut down on much of the cronyism. Socialism has an extraordinary amount of corruption and cronyism as well, and with socialism, there is no check like there is with a free-market.

The Soviet economy for example was notorious for an extreme degree of corruption.

 

[Nebula815]

Robber barons, trusts? But you are right, capitalism is developing, going global and needs stronger government.

Robber barons were capitalists who used the power of government to gain special priviledges. And trusts are illegal.

It seems that you hatred toward government blinds you. It seems that you think that government = socialism. It is not very scientific definition. Socialism is relatively recent phenomena, governments existed for thousand years.

Socialism is just a more modern form of serfdom, other forms of which are slavery, feudalism, etc...

Another comment, national socialism has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is international by its nature. You remember the famous slogan of socialists: "The workers of all the world, unite!"

National socialism is a form of socialism as well. Marxist socialism is international in nature, while national socialism is much more nationalist.

One of the great funnies of history is that Marxists swore they were NOTHING like national socialists because national socialists are nationalist. The Marxists said national socialism and capitalism are the same because both allow for private property ownership. The national socialists swore they were NOTHING like the Marxists because Marxism is international in nature and so is capitalism, therefore Marxists and capitalism supporters were the same.

To a classical liberal (believer in free-market capitalism, limited government, individual liberty, etc...) both national socialism and Marxism were just different variants on the same overall theme: the power of the State over the individual, a dictatorship, government control over the economy for the most part, etc...some commentators at the time even dubbed national socialism as "national Bolchevism."

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Do I understand you correctly that the only difference between American and English capitalism is that America has a constitution and England does not?

No. As I already stated, and you apparently missed, many of the laws in the constitution were designed specifically to avoid the abuses they saw rampant in Colonial English government of that time.
You mention, for instance, the land takings made by the English government to be given to certain individuals. The constitution specifically prohibits land takings for any reason short of a legitimate and necessary governmental purpose and in the event that a land taking is made the previous owner must be fairly compensated.
It is not that a constitution exists, it is the design of the laws therein.

Ok, it seems that you judge about something that you do not know. To avoid it I suggested you to read Marx, thinking that original would be better than someones interpretation. But I understand not everyone has time to read big books. I did not want to go into details but it seems that I will have to. I apologize for the long answer but Marx used the book to describe his ideas.

Considering that we are having a discussion of our ideas and opinions, in order to keep the discussion moving and worthwhile, you might simply define your terms and make your arguments yourself and only cite sources as necessary to evidence claims of fact. I'm sure we could easily both just tell one another "Go read this" "Oh? Well go read this then." but it would not make for very interesting discussion I do not think.
One might also be careful of the way one responds to not make it seem as though one may be insinuating some insult. I am, in fact, in the middle of reading a "big book" right now and do not see the purpose in dropping it for another so you feel I am adequately knowledgeable to discuss this topic with you.

Now to the abstract part. For starter: assume we have a person who worked and produce means of production(machine). Now there is a second person who used this machine to produce final product. Both of them spent the same amount of labour. How should they divide the final product? Why should owner of means of production claim a bigger part than a worker? Why not half-half?

Now to the labour theory of value. Marx, following Adam Smith and Ricardo, assumed that under perfect competition the commodities are exchanged according to amount of labor that is necessary to produce them. Now assume that the person has money say 100,000 that he got after exchanging of the products of his labor. On this money he hires managers to organize factory for him that will produce cloths for example. Managers hire workers and buy machines. Workers work on the machines till the machines depreciate. Final product is cloths. Marx argues that machines by themselves cannot produce value. One needs human labour for it. The value of final product is equal to the value of the machines (amount of labor of the owner) plus the labor of the workers. Now the owner sells the product, gets the money, pays to workers and managers according to amount of their labor spent. What is left? The value of the machines, the original 100,000. He could have his clothes, but capitalist did not want clothes he wants profit. So how does one make profit? He could not pay less for the machines, because everything is exchanged by its labour values, he could steal it, but it is dangerous since property is protected by law. The only way is to cheat on workers. And the way to do it according to Marx is by prolonging working day,but paying the same amount of money as for the original working day.

This is in nutshell the simplified Marx's labour theory of value. So we have seen that people did not became wage-workers voluntarily. The first capitalists did not accrue means of production by hard work, but through violence and force of the state. And the last, even if one imagine that capitalists got their capital through hard work, according labour theory of value they still have to cheat on workers to get profit.

I have cut the historical part of your post, being more interested in the abstract aspect, though I am sure we can both dismiss each others historical examples as not being indicative of a proper application of the ideas we are discussing but that will not get us very far.

My original comment was that this definition of "dead labour" seems to make an odd value judgment and I still do not see that it is not making that value judgment which I find odd. The definition here, via your example, seems to indicate some objective measure of value. For instance; does not the fact that the workers choose to work at the cloth factory indicate that there is some continued value there? Why would they not rather simply create their own cloth and clothes seeing that the machines and factory are apparently something of little value? If we agree here then it would seem to indicate that value is variable and subjective. But if we agree that value is variable and subjective then it does not seem to make sense that the value of the means of production is finite or limited and somehow ceases to be of interest after fabrication.

 

[vici10]

No. As I already stated, and you apparently missed, many of the laws in the constitution were designed specifically to avoid the abuses they saw rampant in Colonial English government of that time.
You mention, for instance, the land takings made by the English government to be given to certain individuals. The constitution specifically prohibits land takings for any reason short of a legitimate and necessary governmental purpose and in the event that a land taking is made the previous owner must be fairly compensated.
It is not that a constitution exists, it is the design of the laws therein.

Ok, I think I understood now what you have said. It also implies (correct me if I misrepresent you) that private property and laws that protect private property are needed for a fair government.

I have problems with this. I think private property and laws that protect it is a cause of misery, not the opposite way around. One should remember that private property in the modern sense is not an universal concept that was held throughout the history. One can think of property as relationship between people in relation to a 'thing' and it is
necessarily a political relation.
Property is a power relationship and it is different in different modes of power. Feudal property of the lord, in England for example, was very different from the private property of capitalist. Feudal lord did not own land but was in some complicated web of obligations, rights and duties toward his vassals and lords. Peasants had to pay a tribute to a lord and held the land in common use.

Private property was needed for a new capitalist mode of power. The “Glorious Revolution” provided the basis for acceleration of enclosures, by removing peasants from the land, removing old common rights and creating new private property for the landowners and huge army of landless peasants, that are forced to become wage-workers, since they were striped of any means of subsistence. So private property in England was created in blood and fire. I believe in modern England, they have now similar to Americans laws regarding protection of private property. Otherwise it would not be a capitalist society.

Now to America. The process of creation of private property was in some sense analogous to English, though of course it had differences. Although there was no feudalism in America, Natives held their land also in common use, similar to English peasants. And as English peasants, they also did not have a modern concept of private property. English appropriated the land from the Natives, and after War of Independence, this land became land of USA. American colonists divided land between themselves and declared it their private property creating laws for protecting it. Land expansion and privatization have continued, with the big immigration from England. Considering what happened in England it is not strange that were was such a big immigration of landless people. American respect to other people's property one can see in “Manifest Destiny”, in Spanish-American war and Mexican-American war.
Also those new immigrants who came later when the land was already conquered and divided, they had to work for those who came early and whose land was protected by law.

If you imply that American War for Independence had a revolutionary element then I am in agreement. That is why it was supported by many revolutionaries across the world, including Russian revolutionaries. The fight against English colonialism is a good thing. Declaration of equal rights for some is already a progress. Abolition of slavery in some Northern states 51 years before it would be banned in the British colonies is also a good thing. But institution of private property was not one of them.

Considering that we are having a discussion of our ideas and opinions, in order to keep the discussion moving and worthwhile, you might simply define your terms and make your arguments yourself and only cite sources as necessary to evidence claims of fact. I'm sure we could easily both just tell one another "Go read this" "Oh? Well go read this then." but it would not make for very interesting discussion I do not think.
One might also be careful of the way one responds to not make it seem as though one may be insinuating some insult. I am, in fact, in the middle of reading a "big book" right now and do not see the purpose in dropping it for another so you feel I am adequately knowledgeable to discuss this topic with you.

It was not my intent to offend you. If you feel offended, I apologize.

I have cut the historical part of your post, being more interested in the abstract aspect, though I am sure we can both dismiss each others historical examples as not being indicative of a proper application of the ideas we are discussing but that will not get us very far.

I do not agree, ideas are not born in vacuum. They are part of historical process and often serve interest of specific groups.

My original comment was that this definition of "dead labour" seems to make an odd value judgment and I still do not see that it is not making that value judgment which I find odd.

Frankly, I do not understand why you think that definition of “dead labour” has a value judgment. If you elaborate more, I may be able to clear it up.
“Dead labour” just a term that defines labour that was spent to produce a product from raw material. It is embedded into the product. It is “dead” I suppose, because it is not a part of living being after a product was created, but a part of a “thing”.

The definition here, via your example, seems to indicate some objective measure of value. For instance; does not the fact that the workers choose to work at the cloth factory indicate that there is some continued value there? Why would they not rather simply create their own cloth and clothes seeing that the machines and factory are apparently something of little value? If we agree here then it would seem to indicate that value is variable and subjective. But if we agree that value is variable and subjective then it does not seem to make sense that the value of the means of production is finite or limited and somehow ceases to be of interest after fabrication.

To clear things more, what do you mean by value? I also have difficulties to understand what do you mean by value being variable and subjective. It seems we are using term value in different meanings.

Regarding why would, workers choose to work at factory, Marx would say, they would not. No one would work for someone if they are not force to. They do because they do not have a choice. And a historic bit of my previous post comes handy here.
Also Marx did not have anything against machines, quite the opposite they around. He also was not against workers cooperatives.

Regarding whether means of production are finite, land is means of production and it is obviously finite.

Anyway, I need more clarification from you to be able to explain Marx's ideas.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Ok, I think I understood now what you have said. It also implies (correct me if I misrepresent you) that private property and laws that protect private property are needed for a fair government.

I think that what is necessary is dependent upon circumstance. I believe that even Marx, based on my limited knowledge, saw the often less than ideal conditions of certain eras in human history as necessary to the evolution of a more profoundly ideal condition for humanity.

Now to America. The process of creation of private property was in some sense analogous to English, though of course it had differences. Although there was no feudalism in America, Natives held their land also in common use, similar to English peasants. And as English peasants, they also did not have a modern concept of private property. English appropriated the land from the Natives, and after War of Independence, this land became land of USA. American colonists divided land between themselves and declared it their private property creating laws for protecting it. Land expansion and privatization have continued, with the big immigration from England. Considering what happened in England it is not strange that were was such a big immigration of landless people. American respect to other people's property one can see in “Manifest Destiny”, in Spanish-American war and Mexican-American war.
Also those new immigrants who came later when the land was already conquered and divided, they had to work for those who came early and whose land was protected by law.

I would agree that a primary element to the "ideal" conditions for capitalism in America hinged on an as of yet untapped availability of land and resources some of which were "stolen" or conquered. It may be worth noting that some framers of the constitution attempted to protect the interests of the native Americans though those protections wound up more implicit than express and were hardly realized in practice.

As well I would note that this highlights part of my issue with historical accounting. In the early US there were conditions favourable for a more "fair" version of capitalism that do not exist any longer and there were conditions of "unfair" nationalist expansion that exist no longer.

If you imply that American War for Independence had a revolutionary element then I am in agreement. That is why it was supported by many revolutionaries across the world, including Russian revolutionaries. The fight against English colonialism is a good thing. Declaration of equal rights for some is already a progress. Abolition of slavery in some Northern states 51 years before it would be banned in the British colonies is also a good thing. But institution of private property was not one of them.

Pardon my partial deletion of some foregoing parts of your post. I did certainly read and consider them but it does not seem very efficient to respond line by line so I will attempt to respond to your general ideas in pointing out certain parts of interest. I think that we mostly agree in many of these issues if not in our surety of certain principals. I would also like to point out here that while I am certainly American by birth and perspective I am possessed of no greater pride or sadness for circumstances here than anywhere else in the world and only use America as an example I am more familiar with.
As well I do not necessarily possesses any preference for capitalism over socialism, communism, or anarchism. I see a preference based only on circumstance and I do believe that any of those systems mentioned may be preferable depending upon circumstance. I realize that there was once a more communistic form of sustenance during humanity's tribal era and if I could capture and reproduce in a macro scale the sort of harmony seen there on a micro-scale I would be all for it.

It was not my intent to offend you. If you feel offended, I apologize.

I was really only unsure of your intention and wished to coax more open discussion. The response is still appreciated, thank you.

I do not agree, ideas are not born in vacuum. They are part of historical process and often serve interest of specific groups.

I agree, though history is a rather poor petri dish for objective examination of results. It is, however, all we have but we need to be careful of its limitations and be mindful of the context of its evidence.

Frankly, I do not understand why you think that definition of “dead labour” has a value judgment. If you elaborate more, I may be able to clear it up.
“Dead labour” just a term that defines labour that was spent to produce a product from raw material. It is embedded into the product. It is “dead” I suppose, because it is not a part of living being after a product was created, but a part of a “thing”.

To clear things more, what do you mean by value? I also have difficulties to understand what do you mean by value being variable and subjective. *It seems we are using term value in different meanings.

*emphasis added
This is where I see the crux of the issue; definitions of value. A primary element of capitalistic thought is the variability and subjectivity of value. The meaning of this is that the value of the product of labour (in any form) is dependent on circumstances which include the "consumers" perceived value of the product of labour. In my opinion this analysis is more objective and realistic than holding that all products of labour are possessed of intrinsic or objectively measurable value. While we may use objective methods for a rough approximation or prediction of value 'essential value' is nonexistent.

Regarding why would, workers choose to work at factory, Marx would say, they would not. No one would work for someone if they are not force to. They do because they do not have a choice. And a historic bit of my previous post comes handy here.
Also Marx did not have anything against machines, quite the opposite they around. He also was not against workers cooperatives.

The question is "Are they forced to work?" If people are capable of producing their own cloth and clothing and find that the value of their own labour without the factory and machines is greater than the potential value of the product of their labour in the factory then the value of the factory and its machines are necessarily lacking. I may create a factory with machines for producing cloth and clothing but if it is slow, consumes great resources, and the product is of marginal quality then there is no reason for anyone to work for me or purchase/consume my product. If, however, the people see greater value in my factory's production of cloth and clothing than in their own efforts its value increases.

Regarding whether means of production are finite, land is means of production and it is obviously finite.

While land itself may be finite its potential value is not necessarily finite.

 

[Nebula815]

I realize that there was once a more communistic form of sustenance during humanity's tribal era and if I could capture and reproduce in a macro scale the sort of harmony seen there on a micro-scale I would be all for it.

Just curious, but why would you want communism on a macro-scale? What is so attractive about it? One has to share everything with everyone else.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Just curious, but why would you want communism on a macro-scale? What is so attractive about it? One has to share everything with everyone else.

If circumstances allowed that all persons could easily be fed, sheltered, educated, and receive medical treatment when needed why should we not share these things with everyone? I am not saying that circumstances do currently allow for this only that if they did I would not see any reason not to.

 

[mheslep]

If circumstances allowed that all persons could easily be fed, sheltered, educated, and receive medical treatment when needed why should we not share these things with everyone? I am not saying that circumstances do currently allow for this only that if they did I would not see any reason not to.

Communism is not sharing, at least not in the end. Sharing implies voluntary giving by the individual. Communism is the taking from A by B, as decided by C.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Communism is not sharing, at least not in the end. Sharing implies voluntary giving by the individual. Communism is the taking from A by B, as decided by C.

And the necessity of "taking" would seem to imply that there is some reason not to share.

 

[mheslep]

And the necessity of "taking" would seem to imply that there is some reason not to share.

We all may have our own reasons to not share, but I don't agree that the forceable taking by some third party is a justifiable necessity except in some narrow cases.

 

[Galteeth]

It seems that Adam Smith has been left out of this discussion. Irregardless of the formalized institution of private property, the idea of private property certainly has a demonstrable benefit. There is a reason why capitalist oriented societies tend to have so much material wealth, as private property tends to incentivise the maximization of production. Now it can be argued, as it was by John Calhoun, one of the founders of classical liberalism, that maximization of production is not always a desirable thing. However, I believe our wealthy western societies have an overly negative bias towards the benefits of such. In other words, it's much easier to see the negatives of material wealth when one is accustomed to it, as oppossed to say, counting multiple pairs of shoes as luxuries.

 

[Al68]

Any political or moral philosophy posits an unrealizable ideal.

That's certainly true, but mine (classical liberalism) posits only an ideal for government, not an ideal society. That's a huge difference. Logically, society simply cannot be both free and meet someone's ideal at the same time.

But, in theory at least, it's logically possible for government to be ideal while society is free, if there is no requirement for society itself to meet any ideal.

I don't think Marx's ideal is so far fetched, it's just totally alein given the current cultural context.

What makes Marx's ideal far fetched is that it posits an ideal society in which everyone agrees with the same ideal.

And it contains two elements that contradict each other, one that each worker will make their own choices freely, and the other that they will all make the choice he wants them to. It's the equivalent of an ideal that requires that each person can choose the color of their own shirt, and that each person will choose blue.

My ideal is the equivalent of one in which each person can choose the color of their own shirt, and contains no requirements about the resulting colors chosen. It's less far fetched to say the very least.

 

[Al68]

Capitalism cannot exist without government. It needs laws to create private property from the public one. It has to use violence to protect it. Government creates laws that benefit capitalsts. To say that government is separate from the capitalists is to live in dream world of imaginary capitalism.

Of course capitalism needs government, but for the underlying purpose of maintaining general law and order, not because capitalism itself needs to be imposed or controlled by government.

Saying that capitalism needs government is like saying that doing push ups requires government, since otherwise someone might cut off my arms. Technically true, but very different from the direct role government plays in other economic systems.

English appropriated the land from the Natives, and after War of Independence, this land became land of USA. American colonists divided land between themselves and declared it their private property creating laws for protecting it.

Not exactly. In the U.S., unused land belonged to whoever chose to use it. Anyone could claim unused land, and continue to claim it as their private property as long as they were using it. It's a little misleading to say they "divided up" land that was already in use. The fact is that unused land was plentiful and a non-issue.

Regarding whether means of production are finite, land is means of production and it is obviously finite.

This point might become relevant if unused land ever runs out. But for now, there is still plenty of unused land worldwide for any group of socialists that care to claim it and create their ideal society on. I'd be completely in favor of removing any legal restrictions for any unused land for that purpose.

Of course that's not quite as good as being able to claim land already containing the fruits of capitalism, but why would they be interested in the fruits of capitalism anyway?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

We all may have our own reasons to not share, but I don't agree that the forceable taking by some third party is a justifiable necessity except in some narrow cases.

Looking at it from out current cultural perspective it may seem that any number of people will have their own issues with "sharing". Considering a potential society and culture developed in circumstances where resources are plentiful and there is no need for competition for the basic necessities of life it is quite possible that those reasons will disappear.

If resources were plentiful and easily available and you had no reason to compete and work for greater success other than your own personal desire for self fulfillment would it seem a bad idea to share those resources with anyone who needs them?

 

[vici10]

I think that what is necessary is dependent upon circumstance. I believe that even Marx, based on my limited knowledge, saw the often less than ideal conditions of certain eras in human history as necessary to the evolution of a more profoundly ideal condition for humanity.

This is true. Marx did believe that capitalism was a more progressive form of social organization than feudalism. It unleashed productive forces of society. With scientific and industrial revolution society can produce much more than it is needed for its reproduction. Maybe first time in history of human kind there is a potentiality to “leap from kingdom of necessity to kingdom of freedom” (Marx). But at the same time Marx believed that along this process (the continuous development of productive forces), social institutions of capitalism will start to block this development. The modern example that I can think of is institution of intellectual property rights. Since under capitalism, one must make profit, part of human knowledge is claimed as private property, limiting access to information which is so important for scientific and technological development of society. Such kind of contradictions, according to Marx will lead to the necessity of new kind of social organization that will resolve the contradictions of previous one.

I realize that there was once a more communistic form of sustenance during humanity's tribal era and if I could capture and reproduce in a macro scale the sort of harmony seen there on a micro-scale I would be all for it.

If so, you maybe interested in Lewis Mumford's two volume series “Myth of the machine”, especially his first volume “Technics and Human Development”. He was a big fan of Neolithic society, that meant for him non-hierarchical democratic society for human needs. All societies after that (except maybe Greek polis and medieval craftsmen) he sees as mega-machines - machines that use humans as its components.

This is where I see the crux of the issue; definitions of value. A primary element of capitalistic thought is the variability and subjectivity of value. The meaning of this is that the value of the product of labour (in any form) is dependent on circumstances which include the "consumers" perceived value of the product of labour. In my opinion this analysis is more objective and realistic than holding that all products of labour are possessed of intrinsic or objectively measurable value. While we may use objective methods for a rough approximation or prediction of value 'essential value' is nonexistent.

You are right, the definition of value is a source of the problem. It is of utmost importance in political economy and economics. And values were introduced by economists to explain prices. Since it is so important, pardon me if I will go into some length regarding this issue.

First, Marx wrote his book as a critic of political economy of his time. Adam Smith justifies why rich should be rich by saying roughly that their wealth is result of their labour. Marx, following Smith and Ricardo, assumes that there is intrinsic “something” ,he felt a need of unit of measure that will explain what two different things have in common such that they can be exchanged. He though that such 'something' is labour that is necessary to produce the product. And under perfect competition he assumes that all products are exchanged by their labour values. Labour itself is measured in units of time.

I see several problems in labour theory of value:
1)Assumption of perfect competition. In modern society perfect competition does not exists. Oligopolies , big governments, dual labour markets, wars – all have its influence.
2)The units of labour – abstract labour time. Although Marx suggested to measure labour in units of time, which is a clear unit, the difficulties arise when one tries to compare different types of labour such as musician, scientist, machinist etc.. Although there was an attempt to consider more skilled labour as a complex units of simple labour, it is not clear to me how such thing is possible.
3)Prices. Since values should explain prices, I do not see any evidence that this is how capitalists set up their prices.

So there are problems with labour theory of values and if it is not true that products are exchanged according to labour values, then the claim that capitalists are rich because of their labour is also collapses. So I do agree with you, there is probably no intrinsic value in a product.

Now regarding capitalist thought that you have mention. I believe you are referring to a mainstream neoclassical economics (correct me if you meant something else). The problems with it and its “subjective value” are similar to the problems of labour theory of value.

1)Assumption of perfect competition, see above.
2)Value is utility that suppose to represent pleasure and pain. But it has even more problems than labor values. First, it is even difficult to think about units of pleasure and pain. Jevons, neoclassical economist, says: “A unit of pleasure or pain is even difficult to conceive.” Second, how does one measure human desire? Neoclassical economists understand this, that is why they switched to 'revealed preferences'. Since one cannot measure utility, neoclassical economists assume that the fact that people buy something means it has utility, and amount of utility is measured by how much money one spends on it. This is what Robinson says:

“Utility is the quality in commodities that makes individuals want to buy them, and the fact that individuals want to buy commodities shows that they have utility.”

So one can see that this is a circular argument. We suppose to explain prices from utility, not the other way around, to calculate utility from prices and then using it to explain prices!

3)Anyone who ever opened book in introductory economics would see the supply and demand curves. Mainstream neoclassical economists assume supply and demand function are independent of each other. But in reality they are not. This is from the book of Bichler and Nitzan “Capital as Power”:
“The basic reason is that any change in the supply price of a given commodity redistributes income between buyers and sellers of that commodity. This redistribution in turns shifts the respective demand curves of those buyers and sellers. And since different buyers have different preferences, the redistribution of income works to alter the overall market demand curve. This simple logic implies that movement along the supply curve are accompanied by shifts of the demand curve – leading not to one, but multiple equilibria.
Neoclassical economists solve this problem by making two assumptions. First, they ask us to forget about the liberal ideal of individual freedom and think of all consumers as drones, each one identical to the 'representative consumer' and therefore possessing the same set of preferences. Second, they ask us to farther believe that these drones have a mental fix, such that the proportion of their income spent on various items is independent of their income level (a consumer spending 30 per cent on food when her annual income is $10,000 will also spend 30 per cent on food when her income is $10 million). These two assumptions – known as the Sonnendhein-Mantel-Debreu conditions – indeed imply that redistribution of consumer income leaves the market demand curve unchanged. But since these assumptions are patently impossible, they also imply that neoclassical consumer theory has practically nothing to say about any real world situation.”
So much for “subjectivity of the value”.
4)Equilibrium. Because of the problems above, given the market price, the question, is this price in equilibrium ,as far as I know, no one was able to answer.
5)Supply & Demand and price setting. It is not clear that supply and demand directly govern price setting. Gardner Means in his work notes that many prices are rigid, he calls them “administrative prices”.

So you can see that there is problem with notion value generally.

The post becomes too long and I shall finish here. On your other points I shall answer in another post.