Debunking Marxism in 60 Seconds

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
SecularCauses
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 2:06 am

Debunking Marxism in 60 Seconds

Post by SecularCauses » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:01 pm

Marx's entire philosophy is dependent upon the labor-theory of value, which is interesting because Marx just assumed it was true, and gave no evidence to prove its existence. The basic idea is that Marx claimed when a capitalist bought supplies, like wood, metal, etc., that what the capitalist paid for the items was a fair price, and that these items could only transfer their value to the final outcome of the production process. The other item the capitalist purchases, labor, Marx treated differently. For Marx, he admitted that the capitalist paid a fair wage for the laborer's work, but claimed that the employee's work was what created surplus value, i.e., profits. That is the laborer, although being paid a fair wage, of let's say, $10.00 for his work, actually produces more than that for the capitalist, let's say, $12.00.

Marx gives no proof for this claim; he just assumes it's true, and builds an entire theory from there. But, he does claim that since capitalists will employ ever greater technology for each worker, that profit rates will fall so low, that capitalism will die off. This is because the labor from the living workers will become a smaller and smaller amount of labor going into the finished product as the worker works with ever larger and more sophisticated machines. If this were true, however, then the highest-tech industries should have lower profit rates than farming operations that still use hand-pulled plows. It would also mean that no capitalist in his right mind would ever employ high-tech equipment, the lower-tech the better. This is empirically not the case, so Marx is wrong. The labor is not the source of profits, but the brain-power the capitalist uses in bringing resources together to provide a good and/or service. That's exactly whay a worker digging ditches and filling them back up again does not create any value, just works up a sweat.

Therefore, since Marx provided no reason to believe in his labor-theory of value and the empirical evidence is against it, we can send Marx to the scrap-heap, along with such other outlandish beliefs, like a god named Zeus.
Not only is Marxism false, but, any socialist theory that relies upon the same false claim is also false as well.

Instabula
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:01 pm

Re: Debunking Marxism in 60 Seconds

Post by Instabula » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:56 pm

Innovation and creativity is something belonging to the employer. It is for certain, too, that he deserves a wage for that, too. Plus he carries all the risk. If his company can't make any profit he loses his capital.

That might be counting for all these decent little middel-class companies but in no way this works for multi-national concerns. May it be apple, General moters, whatsoever. It is neither innovation or any risk so far for them. They are exploiting the people and gain profits that are far too huge to be ever spent.

How can it be that the gap between riches and poors (between capitalists and workers) continues to grow if the wage was fair?

An employer will always go for the cheapest way to produce his product. His only care is to gain profit.

A worker is exploited because he depends on the employer. He depends on his money which he needs to survive.

Marx's theory in my opinion is not stating that the exploitation of workers consists of the product/service only which is composed of labor+resources. It's about the dependance of employees on their employer. It's the unfair exploitation Marx critizes and he's fine to do so!

Impenitent
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Debunking Marxism in 60 Seconds

Post by Impenitent » Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:23 pm

does the employer exploit the worker more than the union boss?

-Imp

Instabula
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:01 pm

Re: Debunking Marxism in 60 Seconds

Post by Instabula » Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:51 pm

Yes.

hiiamme
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:11 am

Re: Debunking Marxism in 60 Seconds

Post by hiiamme » Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:53 am

Marxism is just swapping out one master for another.

User avatar
apaosha
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 10:10 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Re: Debunking Marxism in 60 Seconds

Post by apaosha » Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:22 pm

That's crap.

A better one is this: Marxism is based on the false premise that a bureaucrat with absolute power to seize and distribute resources will do so impartially - or competently.

Instabula
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:01 pm

Re: Debunking Marxism in 60 Seconds

Post by Instabula » Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:30 pm

First of all: That's socialism, something very different from Marxism which is basically a Capitalism-criticism! In fact, Marx barely approved the later ideas of socialism and communism.

I think, the problem of Socialism/Communism should not be reduced to a sentence like "Marxism is based on the false premise that a bureaucrat with absolute power to seize and distribute resources will do so impartially - or competently." If that was the only mistake of Communism it could be easily changed, simply by giving the people the possibility to choose who they think to be able to do that job fairly (so combine representative democrazy and socialst economy). But it ain't that simple. And therefore I don't want to respond to that topic.

The basic question is: Is Captialism exploiting the workers or not? And in my opinion it is. Capitalists will always give the job to the one who is offering the "best" conditions (lowest wagest; highest efficiency). He will always out-source to other countries if that's possible. He will always try to find a way to maximise his profits. Therefore, it can't be true that he is paying the worker a fair wage for his work but rather wants them to outbid themselves in a fight for the few jobs that exist. There are always more ppl needing a job than ppl who have a job. Those who aren't employed will take anything better than nothing and therefore the Capitalist can always pay the very lowest wage. If that is not exploition, I don't know what you mean by this term.

Now a little idea to communism: If capitalism bases on the idea that workers will work for wages that are out of all proportion to the profit than I don't see why we need Capitalists so badly. Why could the state not work like a Capitalist. He could be even fairer cause there would be no competition.

I also think there is another reason to favour Communist/Socialist ideas nowadays. In systems like that there is not necessarily progress. The economy does not necessarily grow. Endless growth is absurd leading to the devastation of the world (ecological). The cheap trick Capitalism uses not to end in that situation is war. Because after a war you can start to rebuild everything and start Capitalism again.

Now think about the idea: Economy progressing not always but only if there is guaranteed to be enough solar/wind/water(/nuclear) power to provide energy to the developement of new products. In such a system the change from huge Computers to very small, very flat Tablet PCs or Mobile Phone wouldn't have been made in 20 years but rather in some 100 years. Computer games would never ever have developed that fastly either. Just to give you the IT-branche as one example. BUT it wouldn't have caused so much exploitation of the world.

The question is whether the demands of society/of "customers" should really be our only concern. Isn't this kind of freedom/"liberalism" without any respondsibility regarding posterity or our planet a very bad idea? I don't see how we can expect anything to change if any change has to be "wanted" by someone who cares to take the respondsibility. It is certainly never going to work like that. You cannot convince the whole world to "want" to change. If whole Europe/America would do the step and no longer use any fossil fuels (and nuclear power) Asia (China, India) would step in and take the dominance in world economy.

In this way it is hopeless to hope for change. Change won't happen if you expect the system to change itself without changing itself (therefore expecting all ppl in economy to change their way of thinking and acting). If you want change a system can't provide you must change the system.

chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Debunking Marxism in 60 Seconds

Post by chaz wyman » Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:00 am

60 Seconds????

It's been nearly two weeks and, as yet, nothing.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests