Comments by "Henry Law" (@henrybn14ar) on "Marxist Economic Theory Easily Explained w/Richard Wolff" video.

A colleague lent it to me to read. I got on a Piccadilly Line train at Finsbury Park, meaning to travel to Earl's Court. I remember the first stop, Arsenal, then I was woken up by cold air coming into the train at Baron's Court, but the doors were closing before I could get off, so had to continue to Hammersmith and go back three stations.
5
Marx's Labour Theory of Value is wrong. The value of an item is not, and cannot possibly be, related to the amount of work and the materials that go into it. This theory was applied to pricing in the Soviet Union, with sometimes comical results. Unfortunately, this led to a reaction in which economists falsely claimed that work and value are unrelated. Value does indeed come from labour but not in the way that Marx asserted. There is a full discussion of the relation between value and labour in 'The Science of Political Economy' by Henry George. http://schalkenbach.org/library/henry-george/science-of-political-economy/spe214.html
4
@Zarion106 Marx's theory is wrong but value cannot be created without the application of labour.
2
@davec-1378 Marx's Labour Theory of Value is wrong. George's Labour Theory of Value is the correct formulation. The mischief done was that Marx gave credence to those who claimed that value does not come from labour.
2
@Zarion106 Diamonds are valuable because (a) people want them; and (b) because it takes a lot of labour to dig them out of the ground and shape them into a desirable form.
2
@davec-1378 Marx never explains why land, which is not a product of human labour, has a value. He just ignores it.
2
@davec-1378 'the mechanisms for the few to consolidate the majority of wealth' Is land enclosure followed by the private appropriation of the economic rent of land. Marx actually noted this process but failed to draw the conclusions. (they might be in das Kapital III)
2
@Zarion106 Ganesh is sort of right. The counter arguments are in 'The Science of Political Economy' by Henry George. You might also find counter arguments in the third volume of Das Kapital, the one which most Marxists don't study, if you can get hold of a copy and have the time and patience to wade through the turgid prose.
2
@Emmerich August Value and labour are related, but not as Marx described. The only coherent analysis of this topic is in 'The Science of Political Economy' by Henry George.
2
@davec-1378 "Value" to Marx is a theoretical unobservable, That would make it a completely worthless concept. Price is the measure of value _at the time the exchange takes place_.
2
@davec-1378 "Value" is to Marx's theory as "electrons" are to the atomic theory of matter. Electrons are negatively charged particles with a very small mass, which surround protons in a pattern governed by quantum mechanical rules in accordance with Pauli's Exclusion Principle. But how does the analogy work? Until you can explain that, the remainder of your explanation does not hang together. George falsifies Marx's theory of value.
2
Ôgun Chinashàwè The alternative system is not necessarily Marxism. The environmental impact of Marxist economies was just as damaging as those of capitalist economies. No capitalist system would put a dirty, dusty coal handling in the middle of a city, which is what you will find in Riga, Latvia.
2
@davec-1378 Where did you see this assertion? Please paste from my comment? Marx's Labour Theory of Value is itself an assertion. My assertion is that Marx is correct in his assertion that labour and value are related, since value cannot be created without the application of labour. However, the application of labour in itself does not guarantee the addition of value, however one cares to measure it. The two alternative assertions can be tested though thought experiments and observation. Marx's assertion fails the tests; an artist can spend weeks and use expensive materials but produce something worthless. My assertion is that the value of something is the labour that someone one will give in order to acquire it. Price is the only measure of value that exists, which becomes knowable when an exchange takes place. Marx's Labour Theory of Value is based on a fallacy of logic. In all normal circumstances, the value of something will indeed be the value of the materials and labour that has been expended on order to produce it, but that would follow naturally if the value of something is the labour that someone will give in order to acquire it. If the value is less than the work required to produce it, then the thing will not be produced. Marx's theory goes nowhere towards explaining why things like antiques are valuable, nor why they can lose their value as a result of changes in fashion.
2
@Zarion106 Keep the discussion polite, guys. When you have to start name calling, you are losing the argument. Ganesh has got a point, though he is wrong. You need to demolish his argument with a proper counter argument.
2
@davec-1378 Are you listening? Please see my latest comments. Or are we in the same situation as I got into with some anarcho-capitalists on PragerU? I hope this is not another one of those Matthew 7:6 moments.
2
@davec-1378 Probably, but Marx is at fault. The English translations that are available are not properly constructed in grammatical English, which makes them inaccessible, but he seems to be mixing up the philosophical concept of value, with value as it appears in economics, ie price. Frankly, it is not worth the effort of wading through such turgid text, and to judge from results, the effort would be less than profitable. The obscurantism of the text also means that there is no way of telling if stepbrother's interpretation is any other than his own.
2
@davec-1378 How about applying the principle of Occam's Razor? Prices tend to an equilibrium due to competition. If the price is higher than the cost of production (ie raw materials, energy, transport and wages at the going rate), then more will be produced. As production increases, price falls. This may lead to the production of unwanted surpluses but the production quickly ceases at that point. Price is how value is revealed at the particular moment and place when and where an exchange take place. Why pile in unnecessary complications?
2
@davec-1378 'It doesn't matter to Marx's Labor Theory of Value what the consequences of the failure of capitalism are.' The theory is wrong, for reasons which are readily observable, one of which is that land has value but is not the product of labour - a phenomenon he does not account for. Marx's critique of capitalism is deficient because he conflates land and capital, which are different categories of thing with different properties. Capital is created by human labour but land is a gift of nature.
2
@davec-1378 Marxist theory presents four insuperable problems. 1) His Labour Theory of Value. It does not stand up to close examination, for the reasons which have been rehearsed so many times since the theory was first put forward. The Marginal Utility Theory of Value is also false, since it attempts to deny that labour creates value. Labour and value are related. The value of something is the labour that someone will give in order to acquire it. Drop the dialectic for a moment and you will realise that this is obvious. It is also the reason why Marx was able to draw the conclusion that value depends on the labour that goes into production, which is normally the case. This is a mixture of accurate observation so mixed in with howlers that it is difficult to disentangle, which is probably the reason for its lasting appeal. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm 2) Value of land. The LTV does not explain why land has a value. No labour is required to produce land, for the simple reason that land cannot be produced by human labour. 3) Conflation of land and capital. Land is sui generis and a factor of production separate from capital. The supply of capital, defined as goods set aside for the purpose of production, can expand in response to demand. The supply of land is both fixed and monopolised by landowners. Until this is recognised, it is impossible to analyse the nature of the economic process. Marx was not the only one to make this mistake. So did Pope Leo XIII, and so also do the defenders of the so-called capitalist system. One of the mischiefs this does is to make it impossible to identify with accuracy what is wrong with 'capitalism', and so the arguments go round in circles. 4) The general problem of changing human society for the better. If people are 'bad' because of their circumstances and the system, then, since the system can only be changed by people, how is it possible that people who have been formed by a 'bad' system can act in such a way as to create a 'good' system? If find myself at odds with both the libertarians of the Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard camp on the one hand, and Marxist like you on the other. The Randists accuse me of being a Communist and the Marxists accuse me of being a libertarian extremists. I am still trying to work out how I can be both at the same time.
2
@davec-1378 Sorry, please can you re-phrase that sentence, it is not clear what you mean.
1
@davec-1378 I am saying that the consolidation of wealth arises in the first instance from land enclosure and the private appropriation of the rent of land. I am informed that Marx said much the same thing. If he did not, then he ought to have done, since the people whom he observed were peasants who had lost their land rights following the land enclosures that were taking place at the time, which forced them into destitution or wage slavery. But Marx isn't strong on this subject. The authorities were the Hammonds, writing in 1910. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9458836-the-village-labourer
1
@davec-1378 Marx's theory is frankly, incomprehensible. It does not make sense in English, due to the poor quality of the translations, which also casts doubt on whether the concepts reflect Marx's intentions. It isn't even grammatical. Whether it makes sense in German, I am in no position to judge; my knowledge of that language is just sufficient to get by when travelling. Your own English is not clear, either. Equivocate is an intransitive verb. I am not being pernickity; I genuinely do not understand what you are saying, or trying to say. This is not a matter of equivocation, but according to your previous explanation, Marx appears to be conflating two separate meanings of the term 'value', which makes it useless as a tool for understanding the economic process. As I understand value, it is measurable ONLY at the point when exchange takes place, when a price appears. I am happy to accept another definition, but you need to explain it clearly and unambiguously. Again, as I understand it, equilibrium price is the price towards which actual price trends at any given time and place. If you can come up with an alternative definition, then please do so in your own clear words. There is a competing LTV, the one given by George in 'The Science of Political Economy'. That you have not heard of that theory does not mean that it does not exist.
1
@davec-1378 are equivicating on "Value" because what Marx is REFERRING TO is completely different than the subjective or utilitarian definitions of Value. Marx is REFERRING to a theoretical unobservable that EXPLAINS equilibrium prices. Please clarify the above. Your version of "value" is NOT trying to explain equilibrium prices, is it? My definition is a refinement of the normal English meaning of the term. Any discussion has to agree the meanings of terms. It appears that we are not speaking the same language. So your "value" and what Marx terms "value" are NOT in reference to the same thing. Hence, you are equivicating. I am still trying to discover what Marx means by the term value, because it appears to be utterly divorced from any normal meaning of the term. I accept that in economics, terms need to be defined with more precision than in everyday speech but they cannot diverge too much. That is why I have asked you to clarify but you have not done so. 2. It's funny you claim Marx is "unintelligible" but yet believe you are in a position to critique the theory. You cannot critique what you do not understand. It is not in the least bit funny. It is not necessary to understand a theory in precisely the way that the author of the theory intended in order to recognise if it is fundamentally flawed. If you try to play the card of having special knowledge, then no discussion can be had. Nor can you expect anyone to accept without reservation that what you have to say is an accurate interpretation of Marx himself. Unless German is your first language and you can dig the meaning out of a heavy, mid-nineteenth century text, you yourself are dependent on the accuracy of the translation. 3. "OTHER THEORIES" Your constant equivocation invalidates any idea an apposing theory explains what Marx explains and predicts because you have shown you lack the understanding to compare any theory with Marx. QUESTION What theory explains equilibrium prices and how does it explain them. That's a first small step you need to take to say there is a competing theory. BTW Notice that all you do is say "Marx is wrong and xxx is right"? That's mere assertion and not addressing his argument. I gave you chapter and verse. You can check it out for yourself. You are the expert on Marx. If equilibrium price according to Marx means what it normally means in economics, then the George theory explains it very well ie it is the price which is equal to the cost of the inputs and wages paid at the going rate. If the price is higher, the goods will continue to be produced. As production increases, the price falls to the point when it is not worth producing any more of the goods. It is a tendency due to hysteresis in the system which leads to overshoot when production increases, and over-pricing when demand is waiting for supply to catch up. This is a familiar situation with RAM chips. That explanation accepts that only labour can add value but also accounts for the observation that labour does not necessarily add value. The Marx theory appears not to explain the latter phenomenon.
1
@davec-1378 You are not answering or trying to explain, patiently, any of the questions that I am trying to get answers to. You shout - complete with CAPS LOCK, like an angry schoolteacher who has lost his temper for no good reason, calling his pupil an idiot for asking awkward questions. On top of that you are looking for infinite evidence. It is an approach which does nothing to promote your cause. On the contrary, you promote revulsion for the cause. The paper I linked to is not a line of reasoned argument based on a set of propositions, but an unstructured stream of consciousness rhetoric infused with angry emotion. The anger is a characteristic of Marxist. Anger gets in the way of reason. You display the anger of the Marxist in all its hideousness. It is no wonder that it has inspired actions leading to 200 million dead and still counting. Good bye.
1
@petarticinovic2710 It depends where you go and at what time. There are , and always have been, areas which are to be avoided. Areas which are safe in the middle of the day could be risky places to be at midnight. But that is true of any big city.
1
Vans Kris Marxists hate zionists.
1
Vans Kris Marx was all sorts of things, most of them bad, but there is no evidence to suggest that he was a Zionist. Zionism was invented around 1890. Most Jews were strongly opposed and thought Zionism was a crackpot idea.
1
Marx is fundamentally flawed. 1) His Labour Theory of Value is topsy turvy. 2) He conflates Land and Capital Through these two errors, Marx fails to analyse effectively what constitutes the Capitalist system and therefore fails to come up with anything like an effective solution. Wolff is falling into the same error. The soundest critique of the present economic system is that of Henry George, in 'Progress and Poverty'. Marx is not worth spending time on. With a body count of 200 million, surely it is time to drop Marx? His theories have never worked in practice. The 'excesses' of Stalinism are inherent in Marxist theory.
1
@Maxcraft12 You can do it to all the others with one exception. Henry George, author of 'Progress and Poverty', and 'Science of Political Economy.' There is also an important piece of work by Ricardo which is key to understanding how economies work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyv1xYDWAxk&t Why Marx ignored this is a mystery as it is key to understanding the problems he wanted to solve.
1