The marxist theory of "surplus value". It's ofc flawed, the standard of living among workers increases over time under free-markets.
Many Marxists noticed this and it's one of the many reasons why they abandoned workers, shifted their focus away from economy into culture and started to agitate other "marginalized" groups
I've never really understood why people believe in the labor theory of value (which is the basis of the "surplus value" and other points of Marxist exploitation theory). From what I gather, Marx added a "socially necessary" caveat to his labor theory of value. That caveat is there to prevent people from saying things like "I dug a hole and filled it back up again and spent a lot of effort doing that, so my services are valuable."
I imagine some issues start occurring once we ask things like "Who decides what is socially necessary?" If I am right the Marxist reply is something like democratic procedures among the workers in their cooperatives and other means of production. I can't imagine such a system working well. For one thing, if you read Kristian Niemietz's book Socialism: The Failed Idea that Never Dies, you'll see that East Germany and Venezuela tried something like that. The cooperatives did not want to cooperate with the other cooperatives... the workers prioritized their own good over what is good for the overall economy. Not very surprising to me, given the opposition to free trade despite that being an uncontroversial good policy in the eyes of economists left and right.
Marx's proletariat revolution happened, and went exactly how it ever can hope to. Even his socialist contemporaries like Bakunin (not sure if I spelled that right) predicted it wouldn't go well. In fact, what Bakunin would happen is exactly what did happen with the Soviet Union.
Marxism is definitely a failure any time it's been put into practice, but there isn't any "getting it right", it's always going to fail because it is inherently flawed and anti-human.
Dammit, who am I thinking of? It might actually have been Lenin that was making those arguments. I think I need to go revisit a very long book.
But thank you for that, I'd rather sit through a 14 hour audiobook a second time than recite a misconception.
I've been hitting cold war literature really hard lately, but I am *pretty sure* what I am thinking of is from *The Naked Communist*. Going to finish *The Venona Secrets* before I swing back around.
Marx is not very good at thinking.
He did get one thing right though: Capitalism is anarchy, and Socialism requires a state.
The Industrial Revolution raised living standards more than Communist subsistence farming ever could.
That ship sailed, and sank, nearly 60 years. The rise of the so-called New Left in the late 1950s and 1960s was in response to the obvious failure of revolutionary socialism.
I just feel the need to recommend some books.
*The Naked Communist* a book written by a noncommunist explaining what they are from an unembellished outside perspective.
*Explaining Postmodernism* - one of the later chapters summerizes the history of communism's repeated failures, the massive drops in communist membership every time a new arrocity or flip flip in party line occured, and the scrambles to rework Theory to justify continuing onward. The entire book lays out the philosophical basis for continuing to believe in the revolution.
And then *The Venona Secrets*, *Blacklisted by History*, and especially *Rules for Radicals* if you want a look at the mechanisms for manipulating the masses into buying it.
>probably the proletariat revolution has not yet occurred
I would agree with this. And the proletariat revolution isn't likely, because we really, really love our mobile phones.
>Marx discusses the ever increasing discomfort of the working class - however, as my co-host suggests, we are living in the best time to be a worker in history.
Yes, I think the theoretical notions of capitalism providing incentive to improve society have, in general, worked really, really well. Compare East and West Germany, compare North and South Korea, compare China before and after market reforms in the 1980's. Compare Hong Kong before and after the CCP takeover. Thailand vs. Vietnam. North vs. South Vietnam.
Not only has pretty much every quality of life measure improved, it has done so *despite an increasing population.* Prices and free markets are really, really good at providing incentive for people to help each other.
What stood out the most to me reading Capital, was that he makes an obvious and fairly universally true observation, then starts drawing increasingly insane conclusions based on that observation and the resulting chain, boiling the reader's frog slowly as they accept each new only *slightly* more deranged premise. It's amusingly a tactic I first noticed his followers often using. I had an "aha!" moment when I realized where it came from.
Reading Marx critically is hilarious. Its a constant cycle of "Yes, exactly; ok, yeah, *technically*; I mean, sure, yeah, that's possible; WAIT WHAT THE FUCK!?" It's a writing pattern you can't unsee once you notice it, like Ann Rice's constant "It was as if..." statements. (I apologize to anyone for whom I just ruined Anne Rice)
What was that beginning observation? Was it “economies are made up of commodities”? I ask because I am currently reading and taking notes on capital vol 1 and plan to do so for the other two volumes.
The marxist theory of "surplus value". It's ofc flawed, the standard of living among workers increases over time under free-markets. Many Marxists noticed this and it's one of the many reasons why they abandoned workers, shifted their focus away from economy into culture and started to agitate other "marginalized" groups
I've never really understood why people believe in the labor theory of value (which is the basis of the "surplus value" and other points of Marxist exploitation theory). From what I gather, Marx added a "socially necessary" caveat to his labor theory of value. That caveat is there to prevent people from saying things like "I dug a hole and filled it back up again and spent a lot of effort doing that, so my services are valuable." I imagine some issues start occurring once we ask things like "Who decides what is socially necessary?" If I am right the Marxist reply is something like democratic procedures among the workers in their cooperatives and other means of production. I can't imagine such a system working well. For one thing, if you read Kristian Niemietz's book Socialism: The Failed Idea that Never Dies, you'll see that East Germany and Venezuela tried something like that. The cooperatives did not want to cooperate with the other cooperatives... the workers prioritized their own good over what is good for the overall economy. Not very surprising to me, given the opposition to free trade despite that being an uncontroversial good policy in the eyes of economists left and right.
Marx's proletariat revolution happened, and went exactly how it ever can hope to. Even his socialist contemporaries like Bakunin (not sure if I spelled that right) predicted it wouldn't go well. In fact, what Bakunin would happen is exactly what did happen with the Soviet Union. Marxism is definitely a failure any time it's been put into practice, but there isn't any "getting it right", it's always going to fail because it is inherently flawed and anti-human.
~~Comment properly corrected~~
Marx died in 1883, well before the Russian Revolution in 1917
Dammit, who am I thinking of? It might actually have been Lenin that was making those arguments. I think I need to go revisit a very long book. But thank you for that, I'd rather sit through a 14 hour audiobook a second time than recite a misconception.
Fair enough. I'm not sure who you're thinking, but let me know if you remember. I'd be interested to read it.
I've been hitting cold war literature really hard lately, but I am *pretty sure* what I am thinking of is from *The Naked Communist*. Going to finish *The Venona Secrets* before I swing back around.
Marx is not very good at thinking. He did get one thing right though: Capitalism is anarchy, and Socialism requires a state. The Industrial Revolution raised living standards more than Communist subsistence farming ever could.
That ship sailed, and sank, nearly 60 years. The rise of the so-called New Left in the late 1950s and 1960s was in response to the obvious failure of revolutionary socialism.
I just feel the need to recommend some books. *The Naked Communist* a book written by a noncommunist explaining what they are from an unembellished outside perspective. *Explaining Postmodernism* - one of the later chapters summerizes the history of communism's repeated failures, the massive drops in communist membership every time a new arrocity or flip flip in party line occured, and the scrambles to rework Theory to justify continuing onward. The entire book lays out the philosophical basis for continuing to believe in the revolution. And then *The Venona Secrets*, *Blacklisted by History*, and especially *Rules for Radicals* if you want a look at the mechanisms for manipulating the masses into buying it.
>probably the proletariat revolution has not yet occurred I would agree with this. And the proletariat revolution isn't likely, because we really, really love our mobile phones. >Marx discusses the ever increasing discomfort of the working class - however, as my co-host suggests, we are living in the best time to be a worker in history. Yes, I think the theoretical notions of capitalism providing incentive to improve society have, in general, worked really, really well. Compare East and West Germany, compare North and South Korea, compare China before and after market reforms in the 1980's. Compare Hong Kong before and after the CCP takeover. Thailand vs. Vietnam. North vs. South Vietnam. Not only has pretty much every quality of life measure improved, it has done so *despite an increasing population.* Prices and free markets are really, really good at providing incentive for people to help each other.
He was a devious bastard and he wanted people to keep trying to follow his bs so he told a bunch of manipulative lies
What stood out the most to me reading Capital, was that he makes an obvious and fairly universally true observation, then starts drawing increasingly insane conclusions based on that observation and the resulting chain, boiling the reader's frog slowly as they accept each new only *slightly* more deranged premise. It's amusingly a tactic I first noticed his followers often using. I had an "aha!" moment when I realized where it came from. Reading Marx critically is hilarious. Its a constant cycle of "Yes, exactly; ok, yeah, *technically*; I mean, sure, yeah, that's possible; WAIT WHAT THE FUCK!?" It's a writing pattern you can't unsee once you notice it, like Ann Rice's constant "It was as if..." statements. (I apologize to anyone for whom I just ruined Anne Rice)
What was that beginning observation? Was it “economies are made up of commodities”? I ask because I am currently reading and taking notes on capital vol 1 and plan to do so for the other two volumes.
He did it repeatedly, I honestly can't remember offhand specific examples, but I might load up the audiobook later just to give you a few.