: This point, really, was the whole reason Marx advocated an objective value system based upon the price brought by workers for their labor.Yes, and this is mere metaphysical speculation. See later about my hypothesis that Marx simply went in search of a method to justify "objectifying" his opinions.
: I think I speak for all Marxists when I say -- Huh? The price "brought" by the workers? As if workers were able to dictate a price from capitalists?
Well, I guess Sammy-Boy isn't the only one needing work on his reading comprehension. Yes, capitalists are beholden to the market just like any other consumer. If a capitalist doesn't outbid other capitalists for labor then no products are made; no products means no profit. Capitalists are no more a homogenous class than people who enjoy playing basketball or people of a particular ethnic heritage. Like any other "class" they have a multitude of interests; many of them at odds. It isn't the worker who dives up the price of his wages it's the competition between the capitalists (several Marxists on this board have baldly stated that competition between capitalists is one of the major flaws of capitalism so don't go saying capitalists don't compete); just like people bid for other commodities, so capitalists bid for the labor commodity. Also, see my post "Classifications: the rational approach."
: Really, you are displaying such an incredible misunderstanding of Marx that it's embarrassing.
Well, it would have been nice if you could point out even one area of misunderstanding so that I could mend the error of my ways. And I don't claim to really even need to understand Marx. This argument is about you, me, Red, Gee, etc. and any reference to any source, yours or mine, should only be made in the context of supporting the particular claims one is making in this debate room. Here, you are coming perilously close to the appeal to authority fallacy (see my other post Monday). Basically, if you reference someone then it is your responsibilty to explain him and not my responsibility to refute him.
: You can't even seem to grasp the relationship between "value" and "price,"
Let me quote Red: the worker is paid $1 to produce a good with a social value of $5. Thus, the worker has been alienated by $4 [paraphrased from earlier on this board]. Red has explicitly stated here that the social value is $5 and the price it brings is $5. Elsewhere, he solidifies this claim by stating that no one would ever pay for something less than its value or sell something for more than its value.
Okay. If Red's quote is true price equals social value; Red did add the caveat that price fluctuated right around social value. So then, any price I pay for something will be right around the value for it (Red would add: sometimes a little more sometimes a little less). But on the average then, any price I pay for anything just about its value.
This says absolutely nothing but that price equals value. And, so what. It tells abolutely nothing regarding the actions I make in my daily life.
I can never disprove "value is the sum of the inputs". So, it says nothing about reality, the world we live in, or suggest courses of action.
: which is unfortunate enough, expecially since you don't even define the type of value,
Well, if mcspotlight would let me I'd take the tens of thousands of words necessary to explain the derivation of indifference curves, but it would be much harder as it involves linear graphs as well. See my ealier post about why I would pick scotch over tequila even though they were the same price. If price=value then a $40 scotch has the same value as $40 tequila. Whichever one I purchased would be completely random as they both have the same value. However, in my life I always pick the scotch over the tequila.
You, or Lark, maybe, replied that my psychological state did not matter and that it did not matter which one I bought but only what the value was. This means absolutely nothing but only as the "Hegelian serpent with its tail in its mouth". It may be some metaphysical truth, but that is beyond any of us to know.
: but seem to see all value as equal, that is, determined by the same function, which you cite as "metaphysical." How absurd!
Actually, I'm an IS major and have taken 5 econ classes in which every professor has recommended I finish my degree and try to get into post-graduate econ.
Each item has value to a particular place, time and person as these individuals evaluate between their choices; it is purely subjective to all the other choices available to them. I value a $40 scotch much more than a $40 tequila, and my brother, just the opposite. Actually, I would even purchase the scotch for $50 and my brother the tequila for $50 but since companies have no method of differentiating me from someone only willing to pay $40 they only sell it at the price where the person least willing to buy equals the greatest marginal cost of the company.
It's a little thing economists call equilibrium.
: My guess is that you have an interest in philosphy, but know very little about economics,
Amusing, I've taken 5 econ courses with two stats courses directed towards the topic of economics and econometrics. I've never taken philosophy in my life although I do read it incessantly.
And if that's so it's up to you and others here to point out the error of my ways. Nothing you've put on this post has even remotely approached this point; a couple of examples would've helped. And, if this is so, why am I the one advocating the price theory used by every single Noble-Prize winning economist and not Red, et al. In my "Foundations" class (freshman econ) we spent maybe an hour going over the history of econ and covered Marx for about 10 minutes. Economists realized that the value of any item is always weighed against all other possible opportunities; this is called "opportunity cost" and its how demand curves are derived.
Funny, though, nowhere on this post do you allude to any knowledge of economics yourself. So, where's your criticism coming from?
: and certainly nothing about Marxian economics. Please, know what you're disagreeing with, at least.
Oops, you're getting close to the appeal to authority again. If you have an argument based on Marx then make it, but don't sit there and tell me I know nothing when I'm the one arguing the theories. I'm well familiar with Marx. A good portion of my professors (non-econ) have been very fond of Marx. Earlier on this board I quite adamantly hypothesized that Marx had decided upon what he felt was "good" and had gone in search of a theory to justify his opinion.
However, I wonder if anyone on this board has heard of Saint-Simon or Compte. These were old French philosophers, the real originators of the class-warfare theories and the first Marxists. I'll bet no one here knew that did they? Suggestion: read something other than Marx.
None.
