Comment by quadrangle | Hacker News Reader

Comment by quadrangle | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Some short perspectives, if simplistic:

Marx was basically just inspired by French Revolution idea of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" and dismayed that it didn't work out. He came to some real insights about why capitalism doesn't achieve that vision. He changed his views over time and wrote strongly about cases where he was wrong. He didn't want anyone to idolize him in some static way or be "Marxist". He actually wasn't prescriptive, he didn't say what to do or how to structure a socialist society. He mostly diagnosed problem patterns in capitalism without proposing what the alternatives should be. Or so I've heard, none of this is my original insights or understanding.

Of people who are "Marxists" by self-description, some have been dangerous and destructive, but there are various versions and they often abhor each other. The worst of them are just as self-righteous as the worst of the Austrians.

FWIW, I think the Austrian models almost all have some truth in them. The problem is how they treat them as complete and dogmatic. They think they have it all figured out, and so they just take any situation and insist that their simplistic models are all there is to it. As a snarky critique, I think the Austrians just believe Wikipedia doesn't exist — or maybe they think it exists precisely because of the lack of government intrusion or something. They just have no insight, no model, no perspective of value on how it is that Wikipedia does exist. They are more interested in their models than in human beings (well, to be fair, I think that's similar for mainstream economists too).

While we're at it, there's a persistent belief that all socialist (in the proper sense of the word) left is Marxist. This is wrong - not even all statist socialists are Marxist, and the vast majority of libertarian ones are not, although they may subscribe to specific notions (like LTV).

I’m willing to learn more, as mentioned, but the fact that there are still schools that believe in the labor theory of value isn’t doing much to sway my preconceptions. Labor is valuable/an important ingredient for determining value, but there’s clearly labor which has no value (banging two rocks together), material which has value despite the lack of labor used to obtain it (water, land), labor which is only valuable in specific contexts, etc. The traditional labor theory of value which is used to argue that all profit is exploitation is I think both outdated and wrong.

I’d be most interested in any socialist schools which explicitly reject the labor theory of value, at least in its original form, and factor in the importance of price discovery and value added from intellectual labor and competent social organization. I’d also be interested in schools which, to the extent they have any recommendations about different ways of organizing money more reliant on social institution, think in game theoretical terms about how to properly balance the incentives of those social institutions and prevent corruption. At that point I suppose it’d be less about economics and more about politics, but what characterizes most socialist schools of economics is the call for social institutions to regulate run away effects of capitalism described by the theory, and I’d be interested in how such institutions might be constructed to be resilient against both stagnation and corruption.

LTV doesn't claim that any labor creates value in any context, but rather that all value is created by labor - i.e. it recognizes the distinction between productive and non-productive labor. From there then follows that if those who performed the productive labor to create the value don't receive the fullness of what they created, it is exploitation.

(Note, by the way, that this should account for all labor involved in production, including management. The common objection to charges of exploitation is that business owners do create value, and it's valid - to the extent that do, in fact, create it, as opposed to contributing resources that were acquired through similar exploitation from some other creator. Thus, a business owner who is not involved in any managerial decisions, but rather delegates it all to a hired manager, derives their entire income from exploitation; but for a manager-owner, the part of the income that they would receive for the same performance as a hired manager cannot be considered exploitation.)

Note that LTV is not necessarily a leftist thing, at least as "left" is usually understood today. For example, Lysander Spooner promoted policies, many of which would be considered radical right-wing libertarianism today - but he based it all on his understanding of LTV and ownership of wealth that one produces.

It's also not contradictory to price discovery via markets. Left-wing libertarianism includes free market variations thereof. In fact, some of them emphasize the free market as the foundational concept for a truly egalitarian society, and criticize capitalism on the basis that it is anti free market, and this is exactly what makes exploitation possible to begin with - see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism (but keep in mind that not all left libertarians who subscribe to such ideas are anarchists).

Yeah, I get that there are more sensible variations of the LTV, but I still subscribe to a more utility and relativity based view. I think labor is almost always a core ingredient in effecting supply and adding utility, but I think the core determinant of value is supply and relative utility.

Also agree about it not being a left wing thing and acknowledge that left wing ideas are all not anti free market.

Well, I agree completely with everything you say in this comment.

Skimming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Karl_Mar... and https://davidharvey.org/2018/03/marxs-refusal-of-the-labour-... and such trying to make sense of the "Labor Theory of Value" and Marx, it seems clear that Marx never even supported the idea let alone had it as a foundational principle. But I find trudging through what Marx actually said or wrote not enjoyable or worthwhile generally.

In the end, it doesn't matter what Marx said or not, what matters is whether specific ideas have merit. I'm pretty sure I would not agree with everything Marx did actually say. The point is that it is completely irrelevant who said something, which is why the trend to label the source as a way to dismiss things is such a problem intellectually.

I haven't heard anything from Varoufakis that seems like BS along the lines of Labor Theory of Value. Everything I've heard from him is pretty solid. But that doesn't mean I stand by anything you ever get from him. IMO, it's useful to have good sources, but not so useful to make a big deal over aligning with any particular dogmatic school of thought. Making up one's mind to be a somethingist is a way to get away from curiosity and feel like you just already understand everything. The utility in such labels is just to help communicate in cases where shared label understanding actually exists.

Yes, 100% agree about avoiding dogma. Have had that same complaint about certain Austrians, despite finding a lot of it sensible. You’ve definitely convinced me to branch out and check out Varoufakis. I should really try to trudge through Das Kapital at some point as well, given the importance and the seeming misinterpretations. I’ve heard enough people talk about the core ideas and have read books that gave what seemed a decent summary, but I should really slog through the original source.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com