 |
| |
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:20
|
|
I'll do this in pieces.
First, the publisher of this online magazine it Dan Blatt. He's a writer and he's trained in law. He doesn't have any training in any social science. That becomes obvious as you read his article. More about that later.
quote:
Of those who have waded through "Das Kapital," few had the economic knowledge to evaluate it. Indeed, very few who call themselves "Marxists" - it is widely acknowledged - have ever bothered to even read Karl Marx. |
Besides the fact that Blatt starts out with a batant irrelevant bald assertion that seems to be obviously false, what kind of economic knowledge does he have to understand "Das Kapital?" His overall understanding of the nature of social science is piss poor.
quote:
It is composed of tediously interminable, repetitively and minutely detailed rationalizations, that are nevertheless obviously incomplete and irrational. |
Irrational rationalizations? What can I say, except example please, but he offers none? Anyone else care to help Blatt out?
Secondly, rationalization is part of human nature. Why do you think that conservatives come up with conservative theories and liberals come up with liberal theories? It's the way social science works. It doesn't mean in anyway that the theories are false. It's completely meaningsless to the discussion.
Also, Blatt claims that there are countless flaws in logic and contradictions, but doesn't identify any (bald assertions). Maybe he doesn't know what a flaw in logic or a contradiction is, because he seems to imply that somethings are contradictions which are not.
Then Blatt sumarizes Das Kapital in his own view, obviously to meet his own needs. Then he retorts with six bald assertions.
Next he refutes (if it can be called that) the labor theory of value, and that will take up a whole post probably so I'll stop here for now.
Last edited by Kidicious on 30-05-2005 at 20:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Agreed re: the impersonal nature of the state raising children...very alienating, tho I can understand its attraction, IF one is steeped in the marxist collectivist ideology, in which the state's (which is the ultimate and "natural" expression of the collective society) needs are placed at all times above those of the individual. It automatically engenders individual subservience TO the state at all levels (from birth to death, you are essentially the "common property" of the state machine. It reduces the individual to no more than a means to the ends OF the state (which is glossed over to mean "the greater good of society" without paying any heed to the state's inherent desire to be self-perpetuating for its OWN good, and not the "greater good of the societal whole."
I've got no problems with abused children being removed from their abusive parents and placed where care can better be given (ie, another family), and can even see a case where, on a small (tribalistic) scale, collectivism CAN be made to work (though even here, there have been difficulties).
-=Vel=- |
It is interesting that NAZI Germany was trending strongly in the direction of the state raising kids. All kids, for example, had to be Hitlerjungen. The reasons were the same: the greater good, etc.
In most respects, Communism and Fascism are the same thing because they spring from the same roots: subordination of the individual to the requirements of "society," with, of course, the "party" making the decision as to what was good for "society."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Well, that's about what I expected from part one of the kidicious review.
The examples you seek are what the rest of the article IS. Page after page of his examples, rendering that portion of your "analysis" moot.
Further, Futurecasts has a solid record for economic analysis and forecasting. That track record (both accurate and inaccurate predictions and assessments, is published on the site for all to see, rendering THAT portion of your argument moot (where you call into question their abilities to analyze).
Flaws in logic....read above re: examples. He basically goes through Capital page by page, outlining the flaws in logic as he finds them (and there are many), so THAT portion of the "counter-refutation" is likewise moot.
The summary Kid mentions is not the summary of Marx's work (which does not appear till the END of the articles, and it is clear that Kid has not reached the end yet), but the summary of capitalism as defined by Marx in the work, and IN that summary, we find pretty standard-fare marxist thought (labor is the only value-adding element in the production equation, capitalists contribute nothing, ect., ect.....exactly what Kid and Company repeat ad nauseum here during debate and discussion).
Further, the author does NOT refute the Labor Theory of Value at all (and the fact that Kid seems to think so convinces me that he either a) didn't read the material, or b) chooses to ignore what he reads in order to put a positive spin on things.
More specifically, he refutes Marx's narrow interpretation of the Labor Theory of Value, and repeatedly refers back to that same theory, sans Marx's artificial constraints on it.
Summary:
Thus far, the only point of Kid's that stands is the first one, regarding Marxists and how many of them have read Marx, and the only reason THAT point stands is because I have no statistical information on the number of Marxists vs. the number who have read Marx.
Thus far, that's amazingly weak, but we'll see what else the Kid can come up with.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dracon II
I suppose I am a moderate. I believe that extremities of any kind should be mistrusted. That includes left extremism and right extremism. It is difficult to define what is extreme when one is looking at it from the inside, but I can't help but thinking that the incessant commodification of culture and society that has occurred during the post war period, and the extension and intensification of capitalism that has occurred since the 1970's is displaying extremist tendencies. There is currently developing in the world a global economy that exists above political and hence democratic control. The equation of commodification free markets with freedom is a problematic one, but so is central planning. Either extremities are disciplinary forces... one disciplines through direct coercion (planning), the other disciplines through a ubiquitous extension of the ebbs and flows of capital and through the dependency on constantly fighting to compete and stay afloat. Capital intensification is a stressful experience, no matter the reward, it squeezes every ounce of energy we can produce into keeping the market in growth. The sheer force of countless individuals and competing interests acting in unison constitutes a constraint on freedom. We become prisoners of circumstance and necessity even in the midst of abundance. |
1) Free markets are extreme?
2) "Acting in unison" (the unified direction is "growth) is a constraint on freedom?
There must be something wrong with your use of language. You can't actually believe this.
quote:
However, upon further meditation on the idea of a market, it occurs to me that the market is really a way of organising and distributing what its participants value. It is a way of determining and organising value. A market commodity is not determined by what it is in essence and use, but its exchange value. Therefore, a market is only as immoral or moral as the people that actively participate in it. Of course there is the problem of differential abilities to participate in the market, determined by one's relations of production (Marx) and the distribution of life chances (Weber), which suggests a highly uneven distribution of choice and benefit within and from markets, but in essence, the market itself is an amoral mechanism. If market participants valued equality/world peace/environmental sustainability enough, there would be competition among market producers to provide said values. If, as is largely the case, market participants largely see themselves as individual or familial units who wish only to ingratiate themselves, then the market will be organised around producing end products according to a profit maximising motive that can operate at the expense of both employees, the environment, and society. |
Valued "equality/world peace/environmental sustainability?"
Well it does to the extent these affect markets. But the goal of an individual transaction is "mutual benefit."
quote:
The hard work then, is not in changing the market, it is changing the way people think, and the things that people value. It may be so that markets naturally incline people towards selfishness and individual egoism, but I hope that is not the case. Communism doesn't work because people don't have the maturity or perceive any incentive to make it work. A market that is sufficiently pressured by changing attitudes within its constituency could well tend towards communism by the sheer force of shifting values. Markets respond to value where it can be accrued, and that means responding to the values of consumers with the purchasing power to attain them. Changing the values of those consumers would be a major step forward.
|
Think: It is job of government is to handle the rough edges of free markets by regulating to achieve desirable political and enviromental goals. Leave the market alone, it works fine without "changing" people.
Free, democratic elections are the place to hammer out what society values the most. Values are not to be imposed on people. However, people can be persuaded by a good argument.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:20
|
|
Well if we can all agree that just calling an argument flawed logic does not make it so let's now discuss the Labor Theory of Value.
In Part I Marx distiguishes between;
1) Use Value: Utility
quote:
The utility of a thing makes it a use value. |
2) Exchange Value: Price/Wage
quote:
Exchange value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of another sort, a relation constantly changing with time and place. |
Blatt says;
quote:
Glaringly omitted from the Marx definition of economic value are all the factors that contribute to economic production of goods and services but that have no direct relation to labor on commodities as defined by Marx....
Thus omitted from economic value - besides honor and conscience - are such obviously essential economic factors as
land,
reliability,
courage,
variety,
mental and physical talent,
savings,
financial independence,
financial security,
scarcity,
rarities like works of art and antiques,
the absorption of risk,
the universe of financial services,
the time cost of money (interest rates),
the time cost of productive assets,
the productive incentives of the ownership interest,
the commercial activities that bring goods to market,
competition, without which efficient management is impossible.
all of the management tools available only to profit-seeking enterprises, without which efficient management of complex economic entities is impossible, and
all the signals provided by commercial and capitalist markets, without which efficient management is impossible.
|
The thing that should strike you first is that Blatt simply mentioned Marx's definition of economic value, as though he had only defined one type of value. So what are we to believe, does he mean use value or exchange value. If we assume that he means use value which seems like the safest assumption lets see if any of those items have any use value. All of them except three provide use value. The remaining three affect exchange value. Those three are;
1) Scarcity
2) Competition
3) Signals
So what the friggin hell is he talking about?
Labor creates use value.
quote:
A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. |
All of those things Bratt mentioned (with the exception of the three) have use value, only when labor is used to create that value. Bratt simply avoids the IMPORTANT issue, which is how use value is created, and the obvious fact that exchange value has no intrinsic, absolute value to it whatsoever. The fact is that labor creates use value.
It's very important to note that in Part I Marx does not make the argument that workers are exploited. That comes later. Claiming that labor creates use value is not making that argument. In fact, Adam Smith and David Ricardo made the same argument in their own words.
Boy this Bratt character could be a poster here at Poly with his strawmen and misrepresentations. Maybe his is. 
More to come...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Yep...it just keeps getting better.
All of the above CREATE VALUE. Marx attempts to blind us with smoke and mirrors by carving up "value" into disparate segments so that he can (in later parts of the work) "magically" substitute one type of value for another and thus, reach the irrational conclusion that one or more parts of the production process (ie., the capitalist and time) can be made to simply vanish from the equation without impact.
THAT is the "IMPORTANT" issue. No one is disputing that labor creates value (least of all, Blatt). Simply put, however, is the fact that labor is not the only thing that creates value, which is something Marxists simply cannot accept, because once THAT becomes true, then the rest falls down like the house of cards that it is.
But you keep right on with your "scientific analisys." It's entertaining!
-=Vel=-
EDIT: After two segments of the counter-refutation, the only point Kid has made thus far is to cast doubt on whether or not most Marxists have actually read any Marx. Aside from that, he has shown a gross misunderstanding of what he's reading, which we can only assume stems from one of the following:
A) He's skimming it (at best, and in his haste, not paying attention)
B) He's such a Marxist zombie that no argument, regardless of its strength will convince him that he's wrong
or
C) He's desperate to at least make an ATTEMPT to make his counter-refutation, and in that desperation, doing his level best to defend an ideology with more holes than a block of swiss cheese, knowing in his heart of hearts that it can't be done (Marx couldn't do it in thirty years, so what chance does Kid have over Memorial Day weekend?), but gamely trying nonetheless, because "The Marx" simply CANNOT be wrong...not after all the time and energy Kid has put into preaching the gospel.
My guess would be "C"...
-=Vel=-
Last edited by Velociryx on 31-05-2005 at 01:29
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
The problem with your counter-critique is that you're making the same distinctions as Marx, where none exist.
Value is value, and multiple factors contribute to it. Remove any one of the factors that contribute to value, and you get an inaccurate picture of reality, which of course, was the goal for Marx, because ONLY by breaking a concept like "value" into these wholly invented terms ("use value", and "surplus value", for example), could he later sub them (his invented terminology) in for other (real) economic values later on and pretend they're the same thing.
They're not, and regurgitating Marx for the ten thousandth time will not make it so, no matter how desperately you cling to your beliefs.
Furthermore, your example is as simplistic and brittle as the ones Marx uses in his attempts to paint an awful (and doomed) picture of capitalism. The production function of a modern economy cannot be defined that simplistically, any more than all produce that stems FROM said economy can be defined in a "basic unit of labor."
Kid, please...before you bury yourself more deeply than you already are, I implore you to stop...I'm not even on the same side as you, and I am embarrassed on your behalf. 
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
 
Oh my ever livin' Lord, you have got to be kidding me?!
As one of the guiding principles of Marxist thinking, the author of the critique spends a great deal of his time debunking Marx's various falsehoods in artificially breaking value (and other elements of the equation) into un- or falsely-differentiated segments with the purpose of later USING these false variables in the place of (and often quoting other economists (Smith, Ricardo) USING his invented terminology) and/or his revised definitions of existing terminology.
That you even had to ask the question is indicative of the fact that you've not even read the refutation.
Given that your last several posts have been all about your having read it, and the ease with which you could debunk it, there is, at this point, no reason whatsoever to continue the discussion.
You have demonstrated yourself in this latest post as dishonest, and in your previous several as being incapable of disputing anything besides calling into question the author's assertion that many marxist's have never read marx (which I have no information on, so cannot comment on either way).
Given that your one "point" (potential point) is immaterial to the discussion or comparison of the two economic theories, I would have to say that your refutation has, to this meager point you have brought it, been an unmitigated disaster.
-=Vel=-
PS:
I was talking about Das Kapital,
Really? That's interesting since you're not counter-critiquing Das Capital, nor do any of Blatt's words appear IN that work. Pretty neat trick there, Kidicious!
If I knew then I could formulate a response. See that's the problem.
In that case, I heartily recomment actually READING the damned article you're attempting to refute.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
The party boss holds up four fingers and asks, once more, "How many fingers." The desparate thought-crime prisoner, seeking to end the tortue, exclaims, finally, "FIVE!" I see FIVE fingers.!"
The party boss, relaxes and waves off the torturers. With a wink and a smile, he says to the now ecstatic prisoner, "Now you understand that language means what we say it means."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Then I propose an agreement to not respond to each other any longer. I would like to discuss issues without you responding so that we do not get into the same old crap, and I think you would also like me to not respond to your arguments. I think that would make things more pleasant for everyone.
edit: and the agreement would include a no baiting clause. That is we can not try to bait each other specifically.
I have a counter-proposal. You openly acknowledge that you've been duped by Marxist thought and thinking for the past however many years it's been, and stop pretending that Marxist theory has anything to do with logic, and we won't have a problem.
(and in case that wasn't quite clear enough, I'll put it another way: No deal.  )
EDIT: Or, the simpler solution...if you don't want to read my responses to your tripe, then put me on your ignore list. The "no bait" clause would trigger about every time you came out to hum a few bars in praise of Marx anyways, rendering the whole agreement rather pointless. But I suspect you already knew that.
Oh, and:
That's pretty much what happened. Somehow 2 things was 1 thing.
The "two things" you're referring to would be "use value" and "exchange value", would they?
Because if they are, you're wrong again. The "two things" were always one thing. Adam Smith was writing about value a long time before big daddy Marx came along. It was Marx who took the one thing, and broke it down into many extraneous parts in order to serve his own propaganda needs.
But thanks for providing another nail for your coffin...
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Then I propose an agreement to not respond to each other any longer. I would like to discuss issues without you responding so that we do not get into the same old crap, and I think you would also like me to not respond to your arguments. I think that would make things more pleasant for everyone.
edit: and the agreement would include a no baiting clause. That is we can not try to bait each other specifically.
I have a counter-proposal. You openly acknowledge that you've been duped by Marxist thought and thinking for the past however many years it's been, and stop pretending that Marxist theory has anything to do with logic, and we won't have a problem.
(and in case that wasn't quite clear enough, I'll put it another way: No deal. )
EDIT: Or, the simpler solution...if you don't want to read my responses to your tripe, then put me on your ignore list. The "no bait" clause would trigger about every time you came out to hum a few bars in praise of Marx anyways, rendering the whole agreement rather pointless. But I suspect you already knew that.
Oh, and:
That's pretty much what happened. Somehow 2 things was 1 thing.
The "two things" you're referring to would be "use value" and "exchange value", would they?
Because if they are, you're wrong again. The "two things" were always one thing. Adam Smith was writing about value a long time before big daddy Marx came along. It was Marx who took the one thing, and broke it down into many extraneous parts in order to serve his own propaganda needs.
But thanks for providing another nail for your coffin...
-=Vel=- |
Utility is a form of value according to JS Mill, Jevons, and Walras. Learn some history of economic thought, and stop posting BS. Smith didn't know everything. In fact there have actually been advancements in economics since the Wealth of Nations. OMFG! No ****!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Utility is a form of value according to JS Mill, Jevons, and Walras. Learn some history of economic thought, and stop posting BS. Smith didn't know everything. In fact there have actually been advancements in economics since the Wealth of Nations. OMFG! No ****!
Unfortunately, you continue to shoot blindly, and utterly miss the argument. From an economic standpoint, value is value, and despite what your good uncle Marx told you, a number of factors contribute to its creation. To pretend otherwise is as false as the rest of the Marxist argument that follows, or, in your own vernacular...it (Marx's "theory") is BS.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-05-2005 20:24
|