A while back In some thread
>>2447889I asked a question about commodity production.
You guys told me to read:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htmNow I only read a couple of paragraphs.
But:
<HOLY SHIT I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH A LOTWhat is happening to me?
Why am I agreeing with marx?
>It might seem that, if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantum of labour expended during its production, the more lazy- and incompetent a man the more valuable his commodity is, because he needs all the more labour-time for its completion. But only the socially necessary labour-time is labour-time required for the constitution of some particular use-value, with the available socially-normal conditions of production and the social average-level of competence and intensity of labour. After the introduction of the steam-driven loom in England, for example, perhaps half as much labour as before was sufficient to change a given quantum of yarn into cloth. The English hand-weaver needed in order to accomplish this change the same labour-time as before, to be sure, but the product of his individual labour-hour now represented only one half a social labour-hour, and sank accordingly to half its earlier value.
<this is correct
>The quantity of value of a commodity accordingly would remain constant if the labour-time required for its production were constant. The latter, however, changes with each change in the productive power of labour. The productive power of labour is determined by manifold conditions, among others by the average grade of competence of the workers, the level of development of science and its technological applicability, the social combination of the process of production, the scope and the efficacy of the means of production, and by natural relationships. The same quantum of labour manifests itself after propitious weather in 8 bushels of wheat, but after impropitious weather, in only 4, for example. The very same quantum of labour provides more metals in richly laden mines than in poor ones, etc. Diamonds are rare on the surface of the earth, and their discovery therefore costs on the average much labour-time. Consequently, they represent much labour in a small volume of space. Jacob doubts that gold has ever paid its complete value. This holds true even more for diamonds. According to Eschwege, by 1823 the complete yield of the eight-year old Brazilian diamond-diggings had not yet amounted to the value of the 1½ year average product of the Brazilian sugar or coffee plantations. Given more richly laden diggings the same quantum of labour would be represented by more diamonds and their value would sink. If one succeeds in converting coal into diamonds with little labour, then the value of diamonds would sink beneath that of paving stones. In general: the greater the productive power of labour the smaller is the amount of labour-time required for the production of an article, and the smaller the mass of labour crystallized in it, the smaller is its value. And on the contrary, the smaller the productive power of labour, the greater is the labour-time necessary for the-production of an article, and the greater its value is. The quantity of value of a commodity varies directly as the quantum, and inversely as the productive power of the labour embodying itself in the commodity.
<this is also true
>A thing can be a use-value without being an exchange-value. This is the case wherever the human relevance of the thing is not mediated by labour. So air, virgin land, brush in a wild. state, wood growing in wild conditions, etc. A thing can be useful and be the product of human labour without being a commodity. A man who satisfies his own need through his product creates use-value, to be sure, but not a commodity. In order to produce a commodity, he must produce not merely use-value, but use-value for others – social use-value. Finally, no entity can be a value without being an object of use. If it is useless, then the labour contained in it is also useless, does not count as labour and, hence, does not form a value.
<This is also true (stopped reading here to make this post)Now I am kinda retarded so I read slow and I have to re-read what is written since marx uses archaic wording and vocabulary, but holy shit, I actually agree with a lot of what he wrote.
I am having a crisis right now because marx is using the exact same arguments that austrians use (mudpies, diamonds on an island etc.) , and it appears marx did a pre-bunk of debunks and I did not now this.
How similar is austrian and marxist economics? Is it weird that I as a Hoppean ancap am agreeing with marx?
>>2457994Not only smart but also well-read and without any conflict of interests since he didn't have anything to lose other than his family.
>and it appears marx did a pre-bunk of debunks and I did not now this.Yes, the economists of the Austrian school apply bad faith to Marx because they didn't stand to lose anything. No one read Marx because the act itself is shunned as taboo, so they could falsify it as they like.
The more you read Marx, the more you'll see he has more in common with Smith and Ricardo than both Austrian/Chicago economics and modern economics. He is not an economist however, he was a critic of political economy. The point of understanding things is to change them.
>How similar is austrian and marxist economics? Not at all. See video embed.
>>2458013I have a feeling most austrians have not read the work of austrians. But thanks for the video.
Side note:
Free will is real though, it's called agency and is related to sapience, sentience and consciousness.
as i reference here:
>>2366403hoppe actually agrees with marx on most things:
>It might surprise some that Dr. Hoppe sees some “intellectual affinities” between Austrianism and Marxism, in the way that each identifies exploitation among a ruling class. Of course, for Austrians, we identify that it is the state — not the bourgeoishttps://mises.org/podcasts/human-action-podcast/hans-hermann-hoppe-what-marx-gets-rightthe question of exploitation (appropriation) is not the only difference however, but also the notion of value. marx takes the internal division of value from the classical school (yet, aristotle first defines it), between value in use and value in exchange (called "the paradox of value", where a useless thing may be worth a lot of money while useful things are cheap). to austrians however, there is only a unitary "value" which is a categorical use-value, and so all exchange is the exchange of unequal values, rather than the trade of equal exchange values. the austrian concept then subtracts exchange value from its formulation, which also means that there is no concept of equilibrium (the basis of adam smith's labour theory of value), since there is no equality to measure between goods.
what you have at least interpreted from marx is also what most marxists themselves miss; that a commodity must be exchangeable to be valuable, such as you quote:
>If it is useless, then the labour contained in it is also useless, does not count as labour and, hence, does not form a value.which itself can be lifted from david ricardo:
>If a commodity were in no way useful, - in other words, if it could in no way contribute to our gratification, - it would be destitute of exchangeable value, however scarce it might be, or whatever quantity of labour might be necessary to procure it.https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/ricardo/tax/ch01.htmvalue then is not a natural relation, but a social relation of exchange, to the classical theory. use-value is inert however. marx differentiates it in these terms: the use-value of a commodity is its "natural form" while the exchange-value of a commodity is its "value form":
>This is the natural form (Naturalform) of the commodity. As opposed to this the value-form (Wertform) of the commodity is its social form.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/appendix.htmso marx separates between nature and society, which is why value is only possible in commodity exchange to him, while use-values are naturally possessed by objects. marx's goal thus is to overcome the value form by overcoming commodity exchange:
>Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmso to marx, value is a creature of exchange, which itself requires use-values to commence a relation.
>>2458013zulu won that "debate" by at least being coherent (value is when i value something). the other guy just waffled for 2 hours.
>Yes, the economists of the Austrian school apply bad faith to Marx they dont read him, the same way marxists rarely read anyone else either. cultism on both sides.
>>2458036whats interesting is that marx actually founded the term "classical economics" (according to keynes), and said that it ended with ricardo:
>The decisive outcome of the research carried on for over a century and a half by classical political economy, beginning with William Petty in Britain and Boisguillebert in France, and ending with Ricardo in Britain and Sismondi in France, is an analysis of the aspects of the commodity into two forms of labour – use-value is reduced to concrete labour or purposive productive activity, exchange-value to labour-time or homogeneous social labour.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/ch01a.htm >>2457964>It might seem that, if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantum of labour expended during its production, the more lazy- and incompetent a man the more valuable his commodity is, because he needs all the more labour-time for its completion. But only the socially necessary labour-time is labour-time required for the constitution of some particular use-value, with the available socially-normal conditions of production and the social average-level of competence and intensity of labour. After the introduction of the steam-driven loom in England, for example, perhaps half as much labour as before was sufficient to change a given quantum of yarn into cloth. The English hand-weaver needed in order to accomplish this change the same labour-time as before, to be sure, but the product of his individual labour-hour now represented only one half a social labour-hour, and sank accordingly to half its earlier value.lmfao ancap anon, see how marx himself in this very same paragraph debunks the "mud pies" argument that people use to dismiss marx? This is because there is a vulgar idea that marx had a "labor theory of value." Not only does he never utter the words "labor theory of value" but he has something much more sophisticated, a theory of socially necessary labor time. Put in more "mainstream" terms marx's idea is that the equilibrium price (not the market price, which deviates from the equilibrium according to supply and demand, but the equilibrium price itself) is determined by society's mean labor time for a given commodity. And this is not just society's mean labor time for the finished commodity, but society's mean labor time for the prerequisite commodities as well. If a commodity is assembled out of other commodities, you also include society's mean labor times for those commodities as well. Supply and demand are market factors. They do in practice cause price to deviate from value (society's mean labor time), but at the same time prices are still "anchored" by cost of production, and all cost of production really amounts to is the sum society's mean labor time for the finished commodity, as well as the input commodities and raw materials (which are not "made" but acquired/refined from nature through a harvesting process that also has a mean labor time).
So really the essence of Marx's argument is that commodities are, on average ,traded for roughly their values, and prices only deviate from values by circumstances which balance out in the long run. This proves the exploitation of labor because the capitalist class cannot consistently make profit by overcharging, because when one capitalist overcharges it means another capitalist somewhere else will undercharge. The capitalist class on a whole must hire proles and pay them (collectively) less than the revenue their labor generates, even if some of them are overpaid. And what is the regulating principle for what the prole gets paid? Their subsistence. They have to be able to come back to work the next day and also make more proles through reproduction. Without subsistence capitalism isn't possible, but without exploitation profit isn't possible. So surplus value is simply what the capitalist skims above the subsistence of the worker, despite the worker generating more revenue than is required for their subsistence.
Workers struggle through unions to get back a piece of that surplus, but they cannot abolish the exploitation itself through unions alone, hence the need for proletarian revolution.
>>2458034>Free will is real thoughif you are bashed on the head very hard you receive brain damage and subsequently will make different decisions than you would have before you received the brain damage. We've known this since Phineas Gage survived a few years after having a large iron tamping rod blow through his skull in dynamite blast. His personality and demeanor changed significantly.
But let's ignore extreme cases like that. Even the ordinary individual doesn't have free will. They are born without consent into a world that has already existed for a very long time. They are totally at the mercy of their parents, surviving only through breast milk or formula for several months, only learn to walk at 1 or 2, and finally their brain starts being conditioned by the language, politics, economics, religion, culture, and science of their society of origin. After all that nurturing and indoctrination, only then can so called "free" will be said to have developed, and yet even in this context with higher agency and sapience, the individual is still subordinated by their immediate survival needs: Food, water, air, shelter. The less they have these needs met, the more desperate they become, and the more extreme their behavior becomes to fulfill those needs, until finally they become too weak to seek those needs and starve/thirst to death, or, in the case of air, suffocate/drown, or, in the case of homelessness, are ravaged by exposure to the elements. But even when a person has all their needs met, they still have secondary needs: socialization, companionship, romance, freedom of expression, a role to play within a community, etc. Can these be called free will? No, because they are still subordinated to society. Even if a person has all their needs met and has a powerful position within society, they are still bound by their conditioning .Their will is not free but highly conditioned. People are primarily products of their environment. The environment only becomes the product of them once they gain power over it, but to gain power over society is simply to be the perfect embodiment of that society's values, i.e. to be at one with the "spirit of the age" and in a sense to be the least free of all, and the ultimate product of that society.
>>2458170marx doesn't have an "LTV" but a theory of socially necessary labor time, or more accurately translated, society's mean labor time, which is a theory of the cost of production, i.e equilibrium price, or "natural price" not a theory of market price, let alone a theory of subjective wants.
"STV" isn't even a theory of value, just a casual observation that for something to have exchange value, people have to want it. which even marx admits that on page 1 of capital volume 1 by introducing the conceepts of use value and exchange value. Marx says use value can either spring from need or want, but he words it poetically "from the stomach or from the imagination"
>>2458170This is what I also think.
>>2458116So what is your identity then? How come you feel alive? I am localized into my body not in someone else's. Just admit you are your own agent and you have free will.
>>2458143Monarchy is preferrable for building communism. You can't do shit in a democracy. Also, I disagree with Hoppe on vulgar idealism, since praxeology needs to be rooted in a proper empirical framework. Rationality is conditional on feedback loops rewarding rational outcomes. So the dialectic is backwards. Hoppe in earlier writings (and partially in later works) elaborates on this.
>>2458037Here I disagree about overcoming the commodity form through common ownership. What I am seeing is a feudalization of sorts where those who are capable are creating their own little kingdoms where their will is most powerful. In other words, total privatization (if done properly) will make it possible for each man to be a king. Notice how each person can theoretically get access to 3D printers, CAD software etc. Even China is so much closer to this outcome than the west.
>>2458206>Monarchy is preferrable for building communism. You can't do shit in a democracy.So you wear an anarcho-capitalist flag but you are a monarcho-communist which is basically the opposite thing? lol
Anyway… I don't think monarchism is a good path because even though the aristocracy and proletariat can opportunistically ally with each other against the bourgeoisie, such an alliance is not bound to last. The interests of the landed aristocracy, and of the ruling monarchist nobility, are bound to clash with the idea of proletarian dictatorship, which is when the proletariat as a class controls society through their own institutions, like a vanguard party, with regional workers' councils, cooperatives, and trade unions participating with that vanguard party. Unless you elect your monarch from among the proletariat, and abolish the principle of inherited titles of nobility (therefore making it not really monarchy but some kind of elected dictatorship), such a "monarch" is bound to be incompatible with proletarian control of society.
Some people say Juche is monarcho-bolshevism but they overestimate how much power the Kim family actually has.
>>2458206>So what is your identity then? How come you feel alive? I am localized into my body not in someone else's. Just admit you are your own agent and you have free will.To experience feelings of locality is not free will, if anything, it just demonstrates that your so called "free" will is bounded within an arbitrary body not of your choosing, and furthermore not just by that body, but by a broader context of the laws of physics, biological needs, and social indoctrination.
You're confusing the
feeling of agency with the ideal of an objective free will. Just because you feel alive and localized within your body doesn't mean you have control over yourself or your situation. Yes you will in practice be held responsible for your actions, and you would be better off keeping that in mind, but "responsibility" is a social ritual rather than reality. Like for example if I murder someone, right, what determines whether I will be held responsible is not whether I had free will or control over myself, but whether I get caught. If I don't get caught, I'm not held responsible, and if I do get caught, the manner in which I'm held responsible is not a matter of the "free will" of the society holding me responsible, but a matter of the level of development of that society. In highly sophisticated and developed societies, "responsibility" is a complex ritual with courts and trials and presumption of innocence, but in a less developed society, or a less developed region within my society, I might simply be dragged out of my house by an angry mob and lynched.
>>2458250marx didn't have an LTV, he had a theory of socially necessary labor time, which is a statistical theory regarding society's mean amount of time required to produce a given commodity, assuming standard methods, competence, etc.
If I were to rewrite capital I would call it "society's mean labor time" rather than "socially necessary labor time" which sounds more confusing. And I would be more clear that value is just the equilibrium price, or cost of production, not the actual market price which is influenced by non-production factors.
>>2458216>anarcho-capitalist flag but you are a monarcho-communistI'm just an honest person. Give me an example of a capitalist democracy switching over to communism and then I will give you 10 examples of backwater feudal shitholes switching over to communism. Let's be real here. No developed country switches to communism, it's poor countries that do.
>Unless you elect your monarch from among the proletariat, and abolish the principle of inherited titles of nobility (therefore making it not really monarchy but some kind of elected dictatorship), such a "monarch" is bound to be incompatible with proletarian control of society.Not a communist, but if you guys want, read into Georgism and combine that with monarcho-communism. I see no wrong with every citizen of this society proving his worth to society before becoming a landed gentleman. The only downside I see is heightened attachment to material wealth that might conflict with duty to one's covenant community.
>>2458230>Free will is dependent on social development.I see no contradiction here but you refuse to see the connection between free will as an actual material concept and agency. Take an MMORPG. How do I know the person on the other end is an NPC or a real player? I know that I am a real player, communicating with avatars, but I require the game itself to tell me about the others. Also, what if the other person is a bot? Just because I am fooled into thinking another player's avatar is controlled by another person, when infact they are a computer algorithm does not negate OBJECTIVELY that the other player is a bot. My inability to differentiate between a bot and a real player does not deny the existence of a player's agency being OBJECTIVELY real or not real. Our inability for universal justice does not mean universal justice is impossible. You are just arguing as a hylic while I am a pneumatic.
>>2458250I think most people just don't understand LTV. I also did not understand it until I read Marx. I always thought that the LTV argument is how much the PRODUCER inputs labor as opposed to the opposite: how my labor input is REQUIRED BY THE PRODUCT.
>>2458297>Give me an example of a capitalist democracy switching over to communismCommunism is a mode of production, not a policy you elect into existence. Nevertheless in the case of a socialist "dictatorship of the proletariat" Lenin also calls that "proletarian democracy" which he distinguishes from "bourgeois democracy"
>It is ridiculous to think that Mr. Kautsky could find in any country even one out of a thousand of well-informed workers or farm labourers who would have any doubts as to the reply. Instinctively, from hearing fragments of admissions of the truth in the bourgeois press, the workers of the whole world sympathise with the Soviet Republic precisely because they regard it as a proletarian democracy, a democracy for the poor, and not a democracy for the rich that every bourgeois democracy, even the best, actually is.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/democracy.htm>>2458335>Monarchies and other primitive societies do have a higher rate of profitbecause the rate of profit decreases as productivity increases. Look into "Crisis of overproduction." Workers using technology can flood society with more commodities than workers without commodities, decreasing the socially necessary labor time required to produce that commodity, and causing the price to decrease, and consequently, the rate of profit.
>>2458085oh, really? explain the difference for me.
>>2458275>marx didn't have an LTV, he had a theory of socially necessary labor timethats the same as ricardo's theory of value:
>The value of a commodity, or the quantity of any other commodity for which it will exchange, depends on the relative quantity of labour which is necessary for its productionhttps://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/ricardo/tax/ch01.htm>>2458353>Communism is a mode of production, not a policy you elect into existence.according to marx, its merely a mode of distribution, which is why in lower phase communism he sought to preserve wage labour and money:
>Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another. Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm >>2458116>Even the ordinary individual doesn't have free will.marx disagrees, so you must disagree with marx:
>This sphere that we are deserting, within whose boundaries the sale and purchase of labour-power goes on, is in fact a very Eden of the innate rights of man. There alone rule Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham. Freedom, because both buyer and seller of a commodity, say of labour-power, are constrained only by their own free will. They contract as free agents, and the agreement they come to, is but the form in which they give legal expression to their common will. Equality, because each enters into relation with the other, as with a simple owner of commodities, and they exchange equivalent for equivalent. Property, because each disposes only of what is his own. And Bentham, because each looks only to himself. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm>>2458034you should also read the above quotation, bob.
>>2458513<readholy shit this is even more free willist than I am.
Was this really written by Marx?
>>2458528I think bordigas are the worst.
>>2458206would you agree with marx that capitalism (1500-) effectively entails a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" (corrupt, monopolising, crony state) which differs from precapitalist property relations, by stealing land to create wage slaves, and so when people fear about big government and call it socialism, it may simply just be the ruling classes extracting more wealth?
>The expropriation of the immediate producers was accomplished with merciless Vandalism, and under the stimulus of passions the most infamous, the most sordid, the pettiest, the most meanly odious. Self-earned private property, that is based, so to say, on the fusing together of the isolated, independent labouring individual with the conditions of his labour, is supplanted by capitalistic private property, which rests on exploitation of the nominally free labour of others, i.e., on wage labour.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/supp.htmi ask, because the security of property (to make each man a king) does not seem to be possible where the ruthless pursuit of profit leads to inevitable expropriation via theft and violence. on this issue, i would also recommend you read my treatment of murray rothbard's essay on the homestead principle and i'd like to see what you think:
>>2404717the premise is lockean, that rightful property belongs to those who work for it - and consequently, the father of anarcho-capitalism says that if the government subsidises a company, the public should own it directly; that if a factory is owned by the state, workers have the right to seize it for themselves, and that if the wealth of slaves was appropriated by masters, there should be reparations. i consider myself a classical liberal, so approach property with a steady eye. the communists want to abolish property (give it to the government) rather than reform it, which i see as necessary for a liberty and justice.
>>2458546Yes I agree with the premise of Rothbard's destatization treatise. But I believe such systems are also unstable and prone to invasion from hostile forces. I agree that every relevant person (citizen) should have property as the basis of his interaction with the rest of the economy (i.e. a nation of owners). My problem with the practicality of destatization is how to make it fair since the state "represents" everyone, but the factory turned into a coop would exclude the rest of society. This is why I have monarchist tendencies, where the king would represent the rest of society and manage the nationalized sector for the benefit of "the everyone". My ideal world would have a strong non-democratic government that helps those who need help and facilitates the freedom and development of every citizen. A government that teaches freedom and cooperation as virtues to the citizenry.
>that rightful property belongs to those who work for itI generally agree but not immediately because at some point, those who work for it, reproduce the value of the thing they work on, but not right away. (productive mortgage).
>>2458548not at all. if an item has no means to be acquired then it possesses no value:
>The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour, as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body. https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/chapter-v-of-the-real-and-nominal-price-of-commoditiessmith speaks here of "imposing" value upon another person, and so the commodity possesses no value in use to them, but only a possible value in exchange:
>The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command.https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/chapter-v-of-the-real-and-nominal-price-of-commoditiesmarx makes the same point; that an exchange-value to the seller must be a use-value to the buyer:
>His commodity possesses for himself no immediate use-value. Otherwise, he would not bring it to the market. It has use-value for others; but for himself its only direct use-value is that of being a depository of exchange-value, and, consequently, a means of exchange.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch02.htmso value must be granted by the acquirement of a good, which is only contracted by its means to enrich the buyer in a useful way:
>Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniencies, and amusements of human lifehttps://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/chapter-v-of-the-real-and-nominal-price-of-commoditiesso, if nothing is (1) necessary, (2) convenient or (3) amusing to a potential customer, it has no value,.
>>2458582SMITH ANON HAS BROKEN CONTAINMENT
SMITH ANON HAS BROKEN CONTAINMENT
LONG SENTENCES THAT BEGIN WITH "FOR MARX," ARE IMMINENT
LONG RAMBLINGS ABOUT MARX BELIEVING IN A SPOOK CALLED VALUE ARE IMMINENT
>>2458573the paradox of (absolute) monarchy and a society of ownership (presumably either a shareholder or stakeholder society - like the early united states where all property owners got a vote) is that a monarch can be outvoted, and of course, a king only keeps power by fostering loyalty amongst nobles, aristocrats and the military, which becomes a de facto relationship of mutual gain rather than one-sided power. in the course of various bourgeois revolutions (the english civil war, thr glorious revolution, the french revolution, the american revolution and the american civil war) we do see periods of dictatorship to preserve power, but this necessary cause recedes as peace overtakes. so are you imagining a hereditary absolute monarchy or just a presidential system with extra executive powers? even curtis yarvin (a fellow hoppean) has stumbled back on this, talking about "accountable monarchy" (where in unqualified reservations he does promote a shareholder system of voting, where every citizen gets a share which can be sold and presumably, votes would become uneven in time and so US corp would be run more like a business. i have my immediate concerns, but i just wonder about your vision).
>>2458596read:
>Freedom, because both buyer and seller of a commodity, say of labour-power, are constrained only by their own free will. They contract as free agents, and the agreement they come to, is but the form in which they give legal expression to their common will.youre trying to say that marx didnt mean what he said? just say you disagree with marx, like you alrrady did with your deleted comment. simple.
>>2458600nope.
>We shall see how further on Adam Smith even more explicitly derives profit from the labour performed by the workman over and above the quantity of labour with which he pays for his wages, that is to say, replaces it by an equivalent. Thereby he has recognised the true origin of surplus-value.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/ch03.htm>Thus even Adam Smith knew “the source of the surplus-value of the capitalist,” and furthermore also of that of the landlord. Marx acknowledged this as early as 1861, while Rodbertus and the swarming mass of his admirers, who grew like mushrooms under the warm summer showers of state socialism, seem to have forgotten all about that.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch00.htm#1885 >>2458593This is such a complex topic that involves the economy, farming, trade etc. So I will just stick to law and governance.
>I believe a free society can only be sustained by a strong state (as such, an emphasis on good governance is paramount) that is committed to freedom. >As a compliment, the government has to ensure practical freedom for the citizens, sharing responsibility with them and trusting them. >A monarchy where the heir has to be confirmed by the people who are already educated and versed in the governance of the state subject to a sudden recall provided through a state mechanism.>Judiciary as a board of directors for the executive and the monarch. Activated only during political conflict. Has own political police/intelligence service that acts in advisory capacity. All judgments must be relevant in source and precedent to the constitution in order to avoid poison tree scenarios, or new law has to be made. No retroactive punishment.>Senate is composed of dukes that has same process as monarch. Each duke, a local monarch, is the senator in the senate. No term limits. Subject to sudden recall.>Senate convened only when laws are to be made on highest state level.>No house of representatives. The duke is the senator and representative and governor at the same time.>Law by decree is codified unless review by Judiciary finds it is in violation of constitution or precedent.>Protesting is illegal, but revolution is legal (sorry this sounds retarded but hear me out). >Monarch/duke must answer a call to revolution.>Military service is mandatory (subject to religious + health exclusions) upon completion of which, the military equipment is taken home by each soldier. >Civilian service is also mandatory as part of basic education whereby citizens engage in temporary unpaid labor as membership due to receiving social surplus. >Citizenship bestowed upon completion of mandatory services (grandfathering of exemptions for mentioned exclusions)>Citizenship allows to vote, act in office and receive subsidies + pay taxes (foreigners pay tariffs)>Public and private military stocks exist>If recalls are ignored, the citizens have a right to take up arms and fight the monarch.>The state's goal is to make the chances as 50:50 as possible to precipitate a risky confrontation and to create a threshold permit for an overthrow if citizens prefer to die than become slaves of a tyrant. Basically the monarch is always under the threat of legal revolution if the monarch does not act legitimately. And if the monarch thinks he is right, let him duel the rest of the country. >>2458908 (me)
>struggling to read 180 year old translations.[correction: the translation OP read is only 50 years old, but the original text is nearly 200 years old and technical, so any faithful translation will be tough without having more context]
And for real, congrats on OP for diving into Capital. The full text is one of the final bosses of reading lists.
>>2458732>strong statestrength is a relative term; a small government can be strong while a big government can be weak. as we see, the bigger the state becomes in the west, the more crime and corruption follows, for example. similarly, you can have yarvin's "cathedral" or managerial system, where totalitarianism is effected by decentralised means (what nixon and spiro agnew called the "media-industrial complex"). soft power is still power.
>government must ensure freedomwell, we surely get our rights from nature and not from government. as george carlin said, we either have no rights or infinite rights. freedom is then not merely right, but also security, which is generally achieved by social trust rather than police protection. as aristotle said, the ideal society is a society of friendship with moderate riches.
>the monarch must be confirmed by an aristocracythen surely the power lies in the nobility? this makes sense, since the state is not personally claimed as property, but collectively, by a particular class. aristotle also perceived this, where he says for example that if you create a society of (wage) slaves, you will surely create a democracy/tyranny at the same time, which is equally why allowing prosperity gives people a greater investment in their own property. the dreggs of society are propertyless, so attempt to exploit the property of others. to fix this, give them a stake in society, and if they fail to maintain this, they are punished duly.
>Judiciary as a board of directors for the executive and the monarch. so you would reverse the separation of powers by putting congress under executive rule? you reference the constitution, yet yarvin sees that a constitutional monarchy is limited in its capacities, so all legal barriers to absolute power must be removed. if you believe in the constitution then you must believe in a judiciary higher than the executive office, no? this is similar to what happened in britain's "glorious revolution" (1688), where the monarchy was restored, under the rule of parliament, where in the US, it would be with congress (or as some put it, "the deep state").
>Senate is composed of dukes that has same process as monarch. Each duke, a local monarch, is the senator in the senate. No term limits. Subject to sudden recall.would you then compare this to the UK's house of lords? which is unelected body with (limited) powers over legislation (which used to be hereditary, and still should be, according to peter hitchens).
>Monarch/duke must answer a call to revolution.okay, so like the mandate of the "consent of the governed" written in the declaration of independence?
>Military service is mandatorywe still have this in many countries
>Civilian service is also mandatoryi would rather approach this with a concept of αὐτάρκεια, like how japanese students are made to clean their own schools. if we have a notion of self-sufficiency and therefore responsibility, we would have less problems. for example, if i use a public toilet, i always make sure to clean it before the next person comes in, since it is ethical to do so.
>Citizenship bestowed upon completion of mandatory services>Citizenship allows to vote, act in office and receive subsidies + pay taxesi like this idea, since for immigrants to become citizens they have to pay money and take tests, so are in some ways, more enculturated than others who possess birthright. would you revoke birthright citizenship then?
>Basically the monarch is always under the threat of legal revolution if the monarch does not act legitimately. And if the monarch thinks he is right, let him duel the rest of the country.so you are a constitutional monarchist, then? what do you think about the UK system?
>>2458606he's not purely referencing bentham; he's making the most basic methodological point, that exchange is not coercive, but is liberating, and so exploitation cannot arise from the mere sale of commodities.
>>2458610>>2458611agency is a concept which ascribes responsibility to someone's actions. we presume rational agency for most adults, so they are legally subject to consequences for example. a person or animal without agency is what aristotle calls "natural slaves", such as pets or children - these beings lack agency and therefore lack self-ownership, so are owned by someone else. the notion of free will is a theological question which was already settled by luther; God is sovereign, therefore, we must abide by His Will, and not our own. kant later claims that conforming to this higher "necessity" (of the moral law) is the space of freedom, such as it is written by paul:
>You have been set free from sin and have become SLAVES to righteousness.<rom 6:18>Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.<2 cor 3:17to speak of "free will" in purely negative terms (as the "potential" to act) is irrelevant to what is actually acted, and has no philosophical consideration, therefore.
>>2459212>strength is relativeI prefer a small government that is strong in its capabilities. It focuses only on the things it can effectively administrate.
>natural rightsI disagree with nature giving our rights. The laws of physics are from nature, we cannot create our own or break existing. Rights of man are taken away by other men. Sorry, this is the hill I will die on from my own observations. And Carlin would argue the same as I. If I can take away a right and everyone agrees, then nature is not the source of it. Not to mention, nature can take away rights as well, but nature has no agency so it cannot have ascribed to it agent actions. It's a false premise is what I am saying. You decide what rights you have and fight for said rights. It's a constant process.
>Confirmed by aristocracyYes, but practically this aristocracy has to itself be subject to citizenry like with that senator delegate system. I am trying to maximize the quality and quantity of the voting subject so they are not swayed by special interests and their own stupidity. Point made is if most people were honest, intelligence and independent, they would be difficult to coopt by spin doctors and media campaigns, hence why democracies produce oligarchies by the consent of the voters.
>ConstitutionThe constitution has to be basic principles that every citizen agrees to. These are essentially the oath of allegiance. What you don't want is a massive rule book with lawyers playing games. You want a lot of rules invisible so criminal elements will have a harder time to game the system. But you need principles to put the citizen in relation to the monarch.
>Senate of dukesSame process as with the selection of monarch but the senator is to have popular will of the citizenry expressed in themselves. Military democracies of the cossacks are an example of what I like, read picrels. This system combined with a monarch on top to oversee the land in its entirety. The heir has primacy for succession, but must be approved to lead the country. I understand that you cannot get rid of all democracy, so instead I am using it as a tool to support the interests of the country as opposed to private interests (at least the goal is). Coupled with other conditions, I feel this will mitigate the negative elements of demoracy.
>Consent of the governedYes, this is a basic premise. If consent is not given, the state collapses because people would no longer obey, and instead create parallel power structures. This has to happen because otherwise, the tyrant will conduct unnatural selection of passivity and obedience, thereby create an army of slaves and I don't want that. I guess you communists have this thing called democratic centralism which I also agree with.
>Civilian serviceThis is to compliment military service where you serve the people in a peacetime fashion. The labor is not only directed to one's own locality but the whole country, building a park in some other province/county, building a railway, working at an automobile factory. Basically any temporary unpaid labor to remind the citizen, the true cost of freedom and how we all have to work to maintain it. Also trains the citizen to be self-sufficient and capable.
>Birthright citizenshipYes, I would revoke it. You still have rights connected to your parents or any sponsor, but they are limited. It's like using your parents' credit card. You will have to get your own. If for example you are an orphan, the state becomes your parent, but you still need to get your own citizenship. Sorry but I can't just throw people out because of someone's else irresponsibility. If the real parents are found (assuming cases of foundlings) then they get the bill. Sorry, don't be an asshole to your kids or if you are too poor, we will help you. (But I try to avoid situations like this I don't want a moral hazard).
>Constitutional monarchyI am not sure that's how the UK works. The monarch is still the effective executor in my system and the revolution being legal means that you cannot be punished for a crime of revolt if you fail. You can break some other law in the process, but you can argue in court you were fulfilling your right as a citizen to engage in revolutionary activity. The threat of revolution would train both the citizens and the security forces how best to play this war game of chess. And I hate protests.
<Also, I am more of an Academic Agent type of guy because I studied elite theory and I find it more enlightening than Yarvin. I am on a quest to find the ultimate synthesis between populism and aristocracy. So I am also ideologically in conflict with AA but I find him mostly correct. >>2459232I agree with this. We still do not know where the "center" of agency is (such as in the question -> can we reproduce agency synthetically indistinguishable from natural agency) but we know we have it.
No matter how hard people try, AI systems they create do not have agency but are instead machines that are part of the natural world we manipulate.
Maybe one day we will I don't know but so far, no AI has identified its own "purpose" or any other indicator of agency. The sum of the parts is not the same as the whole. We cannot make that whole. (so far)
>>2459416>I disagree with nature giving our rightslocke's basic argument is that because God created man and man is forced to labour, whatever he labours for becomes his property by decree of God. the purpose of the state is not to give us our rights, but to protect our natural rights (that which we claim natural property to). locke also thought that atheism should be illegal though, so his idea of freedom was normatively oriented by what could be "tolerated". you could extend locke's understanding toward hoppe's "argumentation ethics", that praxeologically, only a person who believes in freedom may be permitted to exist in a free society (and elsewise, physical removals will be in place). to hoppe, the intolerance of freedom must not be tolerated. this is similar to karl popper's "paradox of tolerance" which he resolves by stating that all intolerance cannot be tolerated (leading to today's politically correct totalitarianism). so i see a struggle of liberalism from its beginnings to deal with the question of rights according to liberty, up to the current crisis of multiculturalism and mutual intolerance. yet, if we believe that rights do not exist, then neither does theft and so there is no politics, in effect (left-anarchists claim property is theft, marxists claim that profit is theft; ancaps claim that taxation is theft). the precedence of property then gives semblance to the claim. politics then deals with justice in regards to who deserves what, which to me has a natural basis.
>Yes, but practically this aristocracy has to itself be subject to citizenry like with that senator delegate system.isnt this just democracy with extra steps?
>You want a lot of rules invisible so criminal elements will have a harder time to game the systemi disagree. law creates crime, even if its natural law. so the more laws you have the more criminals you create.
>the senator is to have popular will of the citizenry expressed in themselvesagain; sounds democratic.
>I guess you communists have this thing called democratic centralism which I also agree with.im a classical liberal, not a commie. and again, it appears that you are a sucker for democracy after all. this is a paradox of dictatorship though; the dictator must always appeal to the people for his own power - rousseau's social contract in action.
>Basically any temporary unpaid labor to remind the citizen, the true cost of freedom and how we all have to work to maintain it. Also trains the citizen to be self-sufficient and capable.i agree with this in principle; but would it also be subject to the patrician ranks? i love this video (vidrel) of king charles iii going for a stroll. a nation more like this would be good, where the poor and powerful alike have to exist together and share labour: αὐτάρκεια
>Yes, I would revoke it.would the same rules of earning citizenship then apply to anchor babies and native children alike? or would the deportation of the parent then simply mean the deportation of the child with them?
>parvini over yarvinyep. completely agree.
>>2459477>LockeI think its self explanatory. We do not exist by ourselves so naturally we share our authority and capabilities. It's better to just admit man can exploit man and work a new framework based on a material analysis of things than simply put out an ideal that itself may change with time. This is why to me a libertarian state is a specific thing and not a general universal direction like in modern democracy.
>Paradoxes of democracyYes this is indeed the case, why I said a libertarian state can only exist within a strong state committed to libertarianism. I think of it a military system imposed on civilian life, you want the general leading you to be charismatic and worth a damn, but this becomes more difficult if there is too many keys to that position allowing for special interest groups to appear etc.
>Law creates crimeCorrect. My argument was that if you stipulate too many rules, it allows for organized crime to take a very calculative approach with crime and punishment. I basically want a mass surveillance system that is judge, jury and executioner, but which only punishes criminals if the victims request help. (Or if the victim is dead, the monarch decides to do it himself, Eye of God type of thing).
>Patrician ranksNot under this arrangement since the goal is to teach everyone that we are all mortal and all dependent on one another. The roles of the patrician ranks are functional not idealist.
>BirthrightYes, anchor babies would not exist in this arrangement since citizenship has to be earned consciously. Deportations would include whole families but everything needs to be done humanely. Also, no illegal immigration and hiring of cheap labor from abroad. That's why this system requires a strong nationalized sector led by the monarch. If you avoid conditions for illegal immigration, then no need for deportations. Also if a person chooses not be a citizen, they can be a permanent resident but of course they don't get political rights/privileges/duties, only want is accorded to each human (golden rule). I am not a racialist so I judge by your actions only. Of course this means if a group of people in aggregate behave poorly, it would appear discriminatory but again, all ethics are on an individual level.
>>2457964I came to /leftypol/ in 2017 to spam pinochet memes and now i'm a gommunist dating a big titty communist girl
reading marx is dangerous
>>2459790I agree with
>>2459791pics of gf holding theory
>>2457964>>2459790 (me)
Actually, let me qualify that last post with some controversial advice, don't read Marx when you are just starting. Marx is a pain.
Read Engels and Lenin, they are much clearer. Also read Chomsky. Between Engels, Lenin, and Chomsky you have your introductory bases covered. Then read a bit of Trotsky to understand the failure of socialism in the 20th century. But it's important not to read too much Trotsky. Just read revolution betrayed.
Also whatever you do, do not read Hegel or Kant or any German idealists. Your brain will turn into the consistency of melted ice cream and you will become trans. If at any point you want to dip your toe into dialectics, read Mao instead.
Coming from a right wing anarchist position, the first thing to understand is that your entire approach to political philosophy is retarded. But it's not fatally retarded, and being this type of retard, you are in good company (thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, John Rawls make the same error). We as Marxists understand that politics should be understood concretely, not abstractly. A political program should not be abstracted from first principles. Instead, the present situation should be studied concretely. In particular, how the present situation is developing, and forces are driving that development.
Liberals, particularly libertarians and Austrian types, understand Capitalism in abstract and static terms, like one might understand painting. We on the other hand understand capitalism as something like a flower which is in the process of blooming. It is something which is changing qualitatively over time. The flower went from state A, now it is at state B, and eventually it will be at state C because of internal forces driving internal movement. Our politics is about discerning the internal forces moving capitalism, and about state C.
Plato and the Austrians do not think about internal movement or state C. Plato sits on a couch and thinks abstractly about justice how the Polis and how it should be ruled. But because he is not thinking about the unfolding of his own society, what he is doing is fundamentally "utopian". We use the word "utopian" as a pejorative to talk about people like Plato who wishfully theorize, instead of trying to concretely understand their society and where the stream of history is pointing.
i'm hopped up on adderall and caffeine sorry for the verbose post
>>2459845So she's a ginger?
Also, no tits but thick thighs.
Did you anonymize those? kek
>>2459832what a load of barnacles.
>>2459787>It's better to just admit man can exploit man and work a new framework based on a material analysis of things than simply put out an ideal that itself may change with time. but the mystery is in the fact that in general, men do not steal from one another, which shows an inherent respect we have for rightful property. it is always seen as fairer to steal from a corporation than a small business or household - there is an order of right in consideration, therefore. natural rights thus impose themselves in a state of anarchy and build from mutual cooperation, while theft is permitted where it is seen as recompense. as rothbard writes, stealing from thieves corrects a crime with justice. so i need not knvoke ideals, but only see where fairness comes from.
>I basically want a mass surveillance system that is judge, jury and executioner, but which only punishes criminals if the victims request helpwell i completely disagree, so have no further comment on that. in fact, a free society is by default a society without protection. state securities are only necessary where there is disorder. surveilance is the direct opposite of trust and trust is liberty.
>Also, no illegal immigration and hiring of cheap labor from abroadempirical evidence show that immigration is lowered in proportion to higher wages for low-skilled jobs.
>all ethics are on an individual level.i agree, but time-preference can be studied across groups, as hoppe confers. thats why he says that homosexuals shouldnt be in power, for example.
>>2459996>ExploitationYes in small groups, but as they increase friction becomes too hard. A limit of 150 people is historically the most a snall village could tolerate before conflicts begin.
>Time preference across groupsYou see that is aggregate of individual actions. You can study groups but it is individuals that give expression to groups.
>TrustThe problem is when it is used against people without mercy. If mass surveillance is invisible then it is not a problem. People fear being taken advantage of yet are not afraid of God spying on them. Intelligence is useful for trust because you know when someone is lying and you can privately correct the matter with them. Trust but verify leads to trust without verification and yet it is good to have it. But the target must not know you have it. Another paradox. You can spy on me but you cannot do anything against me. If you have a problem, talk to me about it.
>immigrationPlease give some studies on this, I did not know this. I will decide if this is true upon reading.
>>2460189Marx was only a goldbug insofar as he acknowledged gold as the money commodity because
1. it is not perishable
2. it requires a high amount of SNLT to find/mine/refine
3. it was the basis for the monetary system.
I do wonder what Marx's thoughts on Nixon's 1971 repudiation of the gold standard would have been.
>>2460527marx invented the term "classical political economy" (according to keynes), yet did not identify with it despite being greatly inspired by it:
>The decisive outcome of the research carried on for over a century and a half by classical political economy, beginning with William Petty in Britain and Boisguillebert in France, and ending with Ricardo in Britain and Sismondi in France, is an analysis of the aspects of the commodity into two forms of labour – use-value is reduced to concrete labour or purposive productive activity, exchange-value to labour-time or homogeneous social labour.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/ch01a.htmhe goes into his criticism of the LTV here:
<Labour is the substance, and the immanent measure of value, but has itself no value. >For the rest, in respect to the phenomenal form, “value and price of labour,” or “wages,” as contrasted with the essential relation manifested therein, viz., the value and price of labour-power, the same difference holds that holds in respect to all phenomena and their hidden substratum. The former appear directly and spontaneously as current modes of thought; the latter must first be discovered by science. Classical Political Economy nearly touches the true relation of things, without, however, consciously formulating it. This it cannot, so long as it sticks in its bourgeois skin.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch19.htmyet marx's qualification against the classicists is their insistence upon an LTV (footnoted in marx's repudiation is a reference to thomas hodgskin's declaration that labour standardises value but is itself not a value - a commodity), which marx supplants by explaining wages from the commodity of labour-power (which marx takes from thomas hobbes, 1651):
>One of the oldest economists and most original philosophers of England — Thomas Hobbes — has already, in his Leviathan, instinctively hit upon this point overlooked by all his successors. He says: “the value or worth of a man is, as in all other things, his price: that is so much as would be given for the use of his power.” Proceeding from this basis, we shall be able to determine the value of labour as that of all other commodities.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch02.htm#c7whats interesting however is that hobbes appears to be earlier than petty, yet he is not identified as part of classical thought, to marx. so to marx, labour itself has no value, but the products of labour in exchange do possess value. key to marx's thought is the notion of labour-power's use-value extending beyond its exchange-value, which makes it a unique commodity capable of producing surplus value:
>We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that the change originates in the use-value, as such, of the commodity, i.e., in its consumption. In order to be able to extract value from the consumption of a commodity, our friend, Moneybags, must be so lucky as to find, within the sphere of circulation, in the market, a commodity, whose use-value possesses the peculiar property of being a source of value, whose actual consumption, therefore, is itself an embodiment of labour, and, consequently, a creation of value. The possessor of money does find on the market such a special commodity in capacity for labour or labour-power.>We now know how the value paid by the purchaser to the possessor of this peculiar commodity, labour-power, is determined. The use-value which the former gets in exchange, manifests itself only in the actual utilisation, in the consumption of the labour-power.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htmso this amounts to what james mill (1821) called "productive consumption"; an idea central to marx's work since the grundrisse (1857). a problem perhaps arises however. if to marx, use-value is the substance of value and production tends toward lesser labour per commodity (cheapness) then a product with a fixed utility increases its use-value relative to a declining exchange-value. so labour-power as a commodity is not unique in possessing surplus utility in the act of productive consumption. i think marx's formulation fails in identifying capital's singularity, therefore.
>>2460284>I do wonder what Marx's thoughts on Nixon's 1971 repudiation of the gold standard would have been.marx criticises fiat currency here;
>Lawyers started long before economists the idea that money is a mere symbol, and that the value of the precious metals is purely imaginary. This they did in the sycophantic service of the crowned heads, supporting the right of the latter to debase the coinage, during the whole of the middle ages, by the traditions of the Roman Empire and the conceptions of money to be found in the Pandects […] [“that the trade, the composition, the supply and the power of issuing ordinances on the currency … belongs exclusively to us and to our royal majesty, to fix such a rate and at such price as it shall please us and seem good to us”] It was a maxim of the Roman Law that the value of money was fixed by decree of the emperor. It was expressly forbidden to treat money as a commodity […] [“However, it shall not be lawful to anyone to buy money, for, as it was created for public use, it is not permissible for it to be a commodity”] Some good work on this question has been done by G. F. Pagnini: “Saggio sopra il giusto pregio delle cose, 1751”; Custodi “Parte Moderna,” t. II. In the second part of his work Pagnini directs his polemics especially against the lawyers.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch02.htmMMT obviously decommodifies money as a token of exchange, so challenges marx's commodity money theory.
>>2460168>A limit of 150 people is historically the most a snall village could tolerate before conflicts begin.basic conflicts are manageable as long as they are self-governed. if two kids have a fight after school, the police dont need to show up, for example. the formalism of the state often misses the informal nature of society.
>If mass surveillance is invisible then it is not a problem.surveillance in itself is a problem; thats why its only necessary where there is disorder.
>People fear being taken advantage of yet are not afraid of God spying on thembecause God is righteous while government is corrupt.
>Intelligence is useful for trust because you know when someone is lyingyou dont quite get it. trust means believing people, not testing them.
>wages and immigrationhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092753711930079X>We find that immigration has relatively small detrimental effects on the wages and employment outcomes of competing native workers. However, the impact of immigration on natives’ labor market outcomes is more negative in states where the effective minimum wage is relatively low. High minimum wages thus exert a protective effect on natives’ wages and employment, making them less sensitive to competition from immigrants.so, immigrants dont lower wages so much, but lower wages do attract immigration. this seems concurrent with this;
>The MAC found there was some evidence that immigration depressed the wages of lower-skilled workers while inflating those of higher-skilled workers, but added that the impact was generally small.https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46918729so again, most immigrants are incentivised by the competition of low-skilled work, meaning that if there was less competition due to higher minimum wages, immigration would be lower, since companies would be forced to hire domestically. the danger people may cite is that this lack of competition causes capital flight, but if you offset high wages with low corporate taxes, maybe you can make up the difference (since income tax is where most government revenues come from anyway). i simply take adam smith's perspective:
>But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch11c-3.htm @bob
i offer a critique of hoppe on marx here:
>>2460758which may interest you. to summarise my eclectic conclusion: marx posits a theory of time-preference which makes workers creditors and capitalists debtors. exploitation can then be understood as unpaid interest on labour, forming a cumulative debt which we call profit. here's my citation of marx:
>in every country in which the capitalist mode of production reigns, it is the custom not to pay for labour-power before it has been exercised for the period fixed by the contract, as for example, the end of each week. In all cases, therefore, the use-value of the labour-power is advanced to the capitalist: the labourer allows the buyer to consume it before he receives payment of the price; he everywhere gives credit to the capitalist. That this credit is no mere fiction, is shown not only by the occasional loss of wages on the bankruptcy of the capitalist, but also by a series of more enduring consequences.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htmtherefore, hoppe's claim here:
>He [the worker] agrees because his wage payment represents present goods — while his own labor services represent only future goods — and he values present goods more highly.https://mises.org/mises-wire/marxist-and-austrian-class-analysisis entirely reversed, since hoppe's claim is only true where the wage is offered *before* labour, yet wages are only paid *after* labour. an austrian theory of labour exploitation is then explained on these grounds.
>>2460595>basic conflicts are manageableThey ultimately were managed by war and raiding. These conflicts usually stopped when a strong authority arbitrated between the two and integrated them into an empire. The converse was that now elements of those would now find more fault with the empire than with former enemies.
>surveillance is itself problemI disagree. You can have surveillance and no desire for control. You can have a desire for control and then create tools for surveillance like with palantir.
>God + Trust testingYou know that God while being righteous also either tests his servants or allows something else to test them? And yet when God is watching, he is not necessarily testing. I see a distinction between trusting and verifying + learning the truth. The government is evil but not all governance is nor is all evil government. I prefer invisible surveillance by an entity not interested in corruption, but interested in love and care. This is difficult but this is better than the nonsense concept of rule of law.
>wages and immigrationI read the publicly available portion of the link but they said there were multiple countervailing tendencies preventing a ceteris paribus analysis. Still from experience I see a push to outsource labor or hire cheap labor illegally than pay the minimum wage (which is also a dumb idea for multiple reasons the central being the property question as to the validity of the state imposing universal conditions to property they do not own).
>>2460767>wage is offered *before* labour, yet wages are only paid *after* labourI am not sure about waged employees but all the salaried employees I know are paid before their labor. Did marx write anything about the difference between salaried and waged employees?
>>2460804>war and raidingthe taliban defeated the US empire by guerilla warfare. if you gave every citizen a gun, there would be no need for grand defenses. the truth reveals itself then; armies are not for defending territories, but for invading.
>love and careand what if people dont want to be loved and cared for by strangers? in common terms, there would be a restraining order.
>Still from experience I see a push to outsource labor or hire cheap labor illegally than pay the minimum wagecapital is inherently antagonistic to labour, so this is just a natural tendency. this is also why "libertarians" inevitably choose to break up unions despite them being voluntary organisations.
>I am not sure about waged employees but all the salaried employees I know are paid before their labor.most workers are wage workers who are paid at the end of the week, not at the beginning of the week, so the worker takes on risk by advancing credit, and the capitalist is obliged to pay a wage as a debt. the interest on debt (from the sum advanced) counts as unpaid labour, which is accumulated as profits. would you say this is accurate?
>>2460815>if you gave every citizen a gunThis is what I want so yes.
>People don't want love and care.Agreed, but the government now is actively doing the opposite so restitution is required before they should just leave people alone.
>SalariesI worked bureaucratic/clerical jobs so I got paid in advance as per the contract. Pay X salary every 3 weeks no matter what I do. Which is why salaries are stupid payment.
Unique IPs: 37