Marxian exploitation

What is the refutation of Marxian exploitation?

It's the refutation of the labor theory of value.  The Marxist conception of exploitation depends on the idea that all of the value of a product comes from the labor that went into its use.  Thus, a factory owner who sells the goods made in his factory for a profit is "stealing" the money from the workers.  This idea completly falls apart when it is realized that value is marginal and agent-relative, and has nothing to do with the amount of labor put into it.

I do wonder how well that critique fares against the latest iteration of the LTV, a la Carson.  Any ideas?

wombatron:

It's the refutation of the labor theory of value.  The Marxist conception of exploitation depends on the idea that all of the value of a product comes from the labor that went into its use.  Thus, a factory owner who sells the goods made in his factory for a profit is "stealing" the money from the workers.  This idea completly falls apart when it is realized that value is marginal and agent-relative, and has nothing to do with the amount of labor put into it.

The Marxist take value as absolute labor content of a good. Value is actually subjective. The workers prefer the wages more then having to release labor to the factory owner. I remember it from a sociology class. They also use other lingo something like subsumption of labor. Later I realized that there are many flaws of that theory.

1.) Assume the factory owner has to pay $800 for the labour and he gains a revenue of $1000. He makes a profit of $200. Now who gets exploited the workers or the customers that paid the $1000 for the goods.

2.) Imagine the (bread) factory owner won't pay the workers with all the bread they baked and not the wages in the form of money. Would they be happy about it?

So one could continue. In fact the workers accept the employment, because it is more beneficial to them then just leisure to them - So they are actually making a profit as well. Both sides, workers and factory owners benefit from social cooperation. The question would rather be whether the profits are "justly" distributed and how something like that is actually regulated (functioning - again this is about how we value goods). In fact the wages and income parity of workers did do increase during history. They got richer, while other people might have gotten even more richer.

wombatron:

The Marxist conception of exploitation depends on the idea that all of the value of a product comes from the labor that went into its use.

To be more clear, what happened was that Adam Smith tried to tackle how prices came to be by how much labor was put into them. For many decades, prices were explained by labor theories of value. Guided with these theories, Marx saw exploitation because he thought consumers were paying in proportion to the labor input, yet the labor didn't seem to be getting its share -- instead the capitalists were absorving this price attributed to labor and would only pay workers their biological needs and the rest was explained by generosity (which he saw would be constantly diminishing because the permanent recessions and reductions of profits).

Someone that says that workers are exploited is a dummy in this day and age. With all the free enterprise and prosperity that even countries like mine here have, it's absolutely ridiculous this kind of communist rethoric. Anyway, there's still a lot of misunderstanding on how wages are set, and worse that government is a necessary force to "balance" them. I think a lot of people, see the employer as the too powerful party and that wages are set in part by generosity -- some business men are guilty of this view as well. They have no idea how the price of labor tends to occur, and no clue on the effects of tampering with it, or introducing labor regulations. They just figure somehow employers will deal with them -- maybe this steams from the fact people don't understand profits in the first place -- and don't see the effects on wages and employability.

Hoppe's article on this (Austrian and Marxist Class Theory IIRC) contains the answers to the question you ask.

-Jon

The Marxist conception of exploitation depends on the idea that all of the value of a product comes from the labor that went into its use.

Even if that was true, the point is that 'workers' pushing buttons are not producing much - they actually rely on a vast and complex network of knowledge(engineering), capital, and other aspects of the division of labor.

instead the capitalists were absorving this price attributed to labor and would only pay workers their biological needs

Which is sheer nonsense. Marx's theory is not directly related to the LTV. Marx's 'theory' is simply outright lying.

Rather than focusing on LTV vs STV, another way to look at the Marxian view of exploitation is through Class Stratification, which Marx delineates as the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the labor/working class and the capitalist/owners respectively.  From the Marx point of view, it is the bourgeoisie that exploits the proletariat.

Do we accept or reject the definitions outlined in Marx's view of Class Stratification?

I would contend that we reject the notion.  From the Austrian perspective, people are treated as subjective individuals rather than lumped into a group.  

 

ViennaSausage:

Rather than focusing on LTV vs STV, another way to look at the Marxian view of exploitation is through Class Stratification, which Marx delineates as the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the labor/working class and the capitalist/owners respectively.  From the Marx point of view, it is the bourgeoisie that exploits the proletariat.

Do we accept or reject the definitions outlined in Marx's view of Class Stratification?

I would contend that we reject the notion.  From the Austrian perspective, people are treated as subjective individuals rather than lumped into a group.   

In the context of economics, yes, it is subjective and individual, but in the context of political philosophy and institutional analysis there most certainly is a class analysis to make. Marx's just happens to be wrong.

Brainpolice:

in the context of political philosophy and institutional analysis there most certainly is a class analysis to make. Marx's just happens to be wrong.

How would an Austrian view class analysis with respect to institutional analysis and political philosophy?

ViennaSausage:

How would an Austrian view class analysis with respect to institutional analysis and political philosophy?

There are two classes, the aggressor and the victim.

In the political sense that translates to the Government (parasites) and the Market (producers).

 

But I would say as far as societies go, anyone who intentially initiates force is in a class (they believe they are more elite/ entitled to scarce resources), and anyone who acts peacefully is in a class (they believe people all have equal rights to self determination and private ownership)

Libertarian Class Analysis

Classical Liberal Roots of the Marxist Doctrine of Classes

Not to forget this beauty...

-Jon

Brainpolice:

In the context of economics, yes, it is subjective and individual, but in the context of political philosophy and institutional analysis there most certainly is a class analysis to make. Marx's just happens to be wrong.

Marx did not simply misidenity the classes. Classes, in the marxist sense, do not exist.

In a specific relationship we can identify one person as the exploiter and one person as the exploited. However, society is not two classes at war with each other.

Politics is war of all against all.

Labor seeks to exploit capital, while capital seeks to exploit labor. Industry seeks to exploit agriculture, while agriculture seeks to exploit industry. Debtors seeks to exploit lenders, while lenders seek to exploit debtors.

 

Also Agorist Class Theory and Class Struggle Rightly Conceived.

Thanks for the link Juan and Jon.  It seems as thought Sheldon Richman, suggests that the class distinction in the Marx sense does not exist, yet alludes to the the taxer and the taxee with respect to the exploiter and the expoited.  Hoppe, strangely enough, accepts the Marx definitions but turns them upside down.  Hoppe is quite a fascinating read.

JonBostwick:

Marx did not simply misidenity the classes. Classes, in the marxist sense, do not exist.

Karl Marx draw the line between workers and owners of firms. According to him the workers are exploited by the owners (capitalist). I do not know about a society where that is really true. Class distinction is often more about education, income and status. So you will find that the engineer (who is worker in the sense of getting paid for his work.) and the large business owner show more class proximity. Then i.e. the large business owner and the owner of a small plumbing company.

Social distinction has existed everywhere and at any time. There is a book/essay by Joseph Schumpeter on Social Classes in an ethnically homogenous environment. One can get it from the mises online library. Another book of interest is "The Theory of the leasure class" by Thorstein Veblen.

JonBostwick:

In a specific relationship we can identify one person as the exploiter and one person as the exploited. However, society is not two classes at war with each other.

... And that's actually how even the workers did see it. They usually know that they are in the same boat, when it comes to business. If the company suffers both the 'capitalist' and the 'worker' are going to suffer. Just that company owners usually sit at the longer end given that they are in stronger contractual position and have more resources.

JonBostwick:

Politics is war of all against all.

No, that's anarchy. Politics is about trying either to prevent or win that war. And that is usually done by teaming up with other people to screw them or prevent them from screwing you.

JonBostwick:

Labor seeks to exploit capital, while capital seeks to exploit labor. Industry seeks to exploit agriculture, while agriculture seeks to exploit industry. Debtors seeks to exploit lenders, while lenders seek to exploit debtors.

Not in dispute that this often tried or happens. However this is often contraproductive. Good businessmen usually will know that considering the interest of both sides of a deal is more profitable for them in the long run. There are of course the morons that are trying to get rich from one deal, by jacking up the margins. Usually that doesn't work, because there will be no deal and most certainly there wouldn't be any repeated business. Greed is not the motor of business / Greed will in the end kill business.

Torsten:

JonBostwick:

Politics is war of all against all.

No, that's anarchy.

You(and most people) have it backwards. Anarchy is defined as the absense of the political means. Anarchy would be cooperation towards common ends.

Politics is benefitting at other's expenses. War of all against all is especially true in a country with an open political class, like the USA.

Those people who thought that anarchy would be all against all, envisioned a break down of of government would cause the opening of the political class. Which, again, is exactly what democracy seeks.

 

JonBostwick:

You(and most people) have it backwards. Anarchy is defined as the absense of the political means. Anarchy would be cooperation towards common ends.

Absense of political means is an impossibility. As soon as you remove the political means present, other political means will move into their place. This is a fact observable in many countries. People take up (or submit to) political means because they believe this action to be beneficial to them. So unless you have strong social consensus about not to take up these means, you will find that they simply rearise after a while.

People take up (or submit to) political means because they believe this action to be beneficial to them.

Great. So tyranny is actually voluntary. It's good to know that.

Juan:

Great. So tyranny is actually voluntary.

I would think so. Tyrants had to make some choices to get into their powerful positions. Despite the fact that they often claim that they were forced by their enemies to act tyrannical, they were the ones that chose the actions they undertook.