tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6267638155798940768.post4204111364681011179..comments2023-05-20T02:55:10.200-07:00Comments on @darjeelingzen: A Question posed to @thepopularfrontDarjeelingzenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13459001964917082591noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6267638155798940768.post-50597346424744091952012-06-23T15:37:37.761-07:002012-06-23T15:37:37.761-07:00As I mentioned before, there is a sense in which e...As I mentioned before, there is a sense in which every transaction is necessarily "exploitative"; in the labor theory of value, that exploitation can only be in one direction, which ever person, for whatever reason, who had exchanged the product which possessed the had the greater labor-value, has been "exploited"; while in the subjectivist theory of value, the "exploitation" occurs in both directions, each person is exploiting the other person's subjective values as to what each expects will meet their needs/desires/values/preferences. If I agree to exchange a used book for a tenth-of-an-ounce-of-silver and the other party agrees, then I have "exploited" the margin at which the other party values the used book greater than the tenth-ounce-of-silver, and the other party "exploits" me for my valuing the tenth-of-an-ounce-of-silver greater than the used book; the slight/marginal differences in each of our personal subjective values creates the opportunity in which an exchange takes place, in which we both expect to benefit -- this is how I see value as being created. Labor is not a value, in-and-of-itself, indeed, labor seems to be a disutility, a discomfort; but it is a discomfort that is often undertaken in order to provide a greater utility or satisfaction of subjective preferences.<br /><br /> I build a fence around my garden so that dogs and deer will not damage the crops I am growing; I do not enjoy the labor itself (though I might enjoy the sunshine, I would rather be in a hammock reading a book) I rather undertake to labor in order that my garden will prosper; I suffer the disutility of labor in as a strategy in which I will expect to make a larger gain. I agree/contract with my employer, to provide clinical/technical support services, in order that compensation will be exchanged. I would agree with you, that the nominal value of my labor is less than my compensation; if it were not the case, then there would be no gain to the employer for employing me; if both parties would not expect to benefit, then no exchange would voluntarily take place. What is my expected benefit, beyond the nominal compensation? I expect regular/predictable compensation whether my employer is paid for her services or not; my employer takes upon herself the risk of the market, the prediction of the most efficient allocation of resources, the savings required to possess those "means of production" that make her enterprise possible. I do not concern myself with those troubles at all, but expect to continue the agreement for as long as it suits us both; the moment I find opportunity elsewhere for better conditions or better pay, I will, without any guilt whatsoever, extricate myself from our previous agreement and take advantage of that greater opportunity (with my well-wishes for her into the future). <br /><br />While there is a sense in which I am a "replaceable object in the production line" my employer is, for me, also "replaceable"; I agree to the exchange, not because of any love for my employer, but because it continues to benefit my satisfaction of wants/needs/values/preferences. I am "granted a say in allocation and wages" in as much as, if I wanted greater responsibilities, I would almost instantly increase the agreed upon rate of compensation by a rather significant percentage, but I have been unwilling to be "on call" for emergencies as I value my free-time very highly and I like to be able to go backpacking and cycle-touring at my whim, outside of my scheduled hours.<br /><br />How do you interpret this arrangement? Am I being "exploited"?Darjeelingzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13459001964917082591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6267638155798940768.post-23116951568872321032012-06-23T15:37:26.852-07:002012-06-23T15:37:26.852-07:00I think I require clarification as to your meaning...I think I require clarification as to your meaning "modern market" as opposed to your use of "market", as the distinction is still somehow unclear for me. Are you referring specifically to corporations? I would have agreement with you in that respect if such is the case, as I see corporations as legal-fictions permitted to operate by the State in such a way as to limit the "share-holder" liability and therefore externalize costs but maximize potential gains. I do not think that in a world free of State domination, that "share-holders" would be permitted to limit their liabilities in this way and would be fully responsible for damages and restitution (British Petroleum).<br /><br /> I tend to see the disparity of labor services to be more the result of States, than with market-processes themselves. The historical evidence suggests to me, that the greater the State's oppression of people (and in this sense, I use "State" as any group of persons, collectively using violence and the threat thereof to coerce & extort from others), the greater the poverty (though the causal connections may be separated by a significant amount of time; which is to say, that it can take several years before the wealth/value built up in a society to degrade with increasingly restrictive resorts to violence, coercion & extortion; just as it took decades of Soviet, "Argentinian" or "Greek" misallocations before the fundamental economic instability and yet much less time other cases).<br /><br /> I conclude that demise of the institutionalization of domination known as the "State" would go a long way to providing a stabilization/equalization of compensation offered to workers around the world, though it is unlikely to ever become completely equal. Labor, as a pure economic function, is like any commodity and will be therefore affected by the supply available (which is usually provided locally) and the demand; but I imagine that in a world without borders, workers may freely travel to those localities where their labor is most valued and this would have a tremendous effect to stabilize/equalize wages for equivalent labor. <br /><br />I am uncertain of the characterization that I am attempting to "categorize" the "means of production"; I would rather characterize my exposition as attempting to give it full & explicit meaning, using the definition to its least inconsistent and fullest meaning. Personally, I don't see "means of production" or "capitalism/capitalist" as very useful/relevant terms as, they appear to me, to express very little; if every person, does indeed possess the "means of production" in their labor, and therefore is a "capitalist" in the strict sense, then the class distinction of Marx dissolves, signifying nothing in particular.Darjeelingzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13459001964917082591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6267638155798940768.post-5389932964148944502012-06-23T14:43:07.735-07:002012-06-23T14:43:07.735-07:00I have no qualms with "markets." It is m...I have no qualms with "markets." It is more so the modern market I am a critic of, which I see being disproportionately beneficial to first world powers at the expense of the poor. Markets in and of themselves are not naturally exploitative, nor do they have to be, and there is fundamentally a "market" even in a libertarian-oriented socialized system of allocation. <br /><br />And by "means of production" it is not so much important to categorize it, as you tried to do, as to see what it should be. What it should be is based on a horizontal power structure, that is the standard. Corporate tyranny, I see, as being synonymous with state tyranny and a restriction of natural liberty. <br /><br />It is not so much that markets are naturally exploitative, it is that the means of production that go into the product produced are not probably accounted for in its value. When products are produced cheaply in the third world, for dirt-pay, and then sold at prices 10x that amount, is the human effort and pain accounted for? Certainly that labor would be worth much more than in the third world if it was produced here in the United States. The reality is that certain individuals are forced into poor conditions and circumstances because they have no choice; they are bound to their economic status, and are essentially powerless in "choosing" their opportunities. They are being expropriated of proper wages, and their input in the production process is minuscule compared to the profit that is created. It find this unfair, and a form of wages slavery -- it is by no means voluntary. <br /><br />Granted, an employment situation (or a transaction) is not necessarily exploitative. If the worker is involved in the production process, possessing a say in allocation and wages, and being granted a voice in his labor, I would find that certainly fair as opposed to being treated as an replaceable object in the production line. An egalitarian workforce, a workers' cooperative of sorts, I find as being the best expression of liberty.Antonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00459481603818321531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6267638155798940768.post-57091229600665914772012-06-22T23:34:05.279-07:002012-06-22T23:34:05.279-07:00I think I can understand/empathize-with your disda...I think I can understand/empathize-with your disdain for "capitalists", even though I hope you can appreciate, that I do not make the same assumptions of distinction as to its traditional usage; I take Marx's definition (and I think he basically coined the term) of "owner of the means of production" quite seriously, and by that definition, I believe that all persons by their own minds, in directing their labor, taking into use, those material objects that they have "mixed" or transformed with their labor (excluding any illegitimate acquisitions) are therefore, by definition, "capitalists". Every rational person, using their minds to direct their labor, possesses the "means of production" and, personally, I draw no arbitrary lines of demarcation between the hands that build the tool, or the tool that builds the machine, or the machine itself; and indeed, I think that it would be contradictory to do so as if the definition of "capitalism" fits the possessor a mind able to direct his/her labor, there should be good reason to make a distinction that such does not qualify, so as to make an exception (and I don't see a good reason to grant the exception). I take it as necessary for a condition of life, for each person, as a mind in a body, to transform the world in such a way to not only sustain their life, but also to make it better/happier/more-preferable. I hope that helps to clarify my perspective, in any case. :-)<br /><br />But I digress; I think I can understand why "capitalist" and "capitalism" may have negative connotations for you, but I'm unclear on why "market" would also have the same/similar connotation; perhaps you could explain?<br /><br />Also, I'm concerned/dubious as the reasoning involved in "back to the hands of those who earned it", superficially, I have agreement with the literal meaning of this turn of phrase, but I suspect that you may be implying something more, probably to do with the labor-theory of value, which I do not find agreeable as a theory of value as it seems to have various deficiencies (for which a great number of "exceptions" must be created to explain those deficiencies). Labor is certainly an important function in any economic theory, but it doesn't (at least to me) satisfactorily account for a myriad of conditions, for which labor doesn't seem to be a factor of value at all, and therefore, I find myself finding much more agreement with the subjectivist theory of value.<br /><br />Of course, as you might expect, if I reason that "all persons who using their minds, direct their labor, and therefore possess the most fundamental means of production and that therefore, all such persons are 'capitalists'" (which if you think about it, it a rather powerful exhortation of the virtue/value of labor), then I would not interpret *every* "employment" situation as *necessarily* "exploitative"; or perhaps said more accurately, I think that every transaction *is* necessarily exploitative, in the sense that *both*/each person, takes advantage of the other persons' differences in preferred-outcome/subjective-values to create a situation in which an exchange can voluntarily take place, wherein both parties expect to gain something more value *to them* than that which they surrender/sacrifice/give-up-for-the-exchange. I don't see *this* kind of mutual exploitation to have any negative moral merit but perhaps you could interject and explain how you see such exchanges differently. :-)Darjeelingzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13459001964917082591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6267638155798940768.post-59202575427511904292012-06-22T23:33:47.039-07:002012-06-22T23:33:47.039-07:00I'm glad that you found it interesting; I thou...I'm glad that you found it interesting; I thought you might. Also, thank you for responding, I think this goes a long way to assist me to understand your perspective. :-)<br /><br />Rothbard does go into rather lengthy exposition on how to make victim's of the State whole but I believe that his rationale may extend only so far, and I do not believe you will find it entirely satisfying. My understanding, is that Rothbard argues that justice would require all victim's of the State and its cronies (such as companies/businesses/businessmen/"capitalists", etc) would have to pay restitution for the damages done by the State; however, Rothbard reasons that a complete restitution is not completely possible, as the State is extremely efficient at *losing* value (satisfying human-need/desire/preferences to a far less extent than voluntary-exchange-markets) and that therefore, while all victims of the State *should* be restituted (made whole, as if the State had never violated "rights") if this is not possible and, in addition, the added complication that "forfeited" properties belonging to the "rightful" "owners" having been changed hands innumerable times, the original owners (as well as original perpetrators) often no long being extant and the proper heirs discernible; and certain amounts of labor or value "mixed" with those properties a clean restitution is made ever the more impractical. For these reasons, I believe Rothbard is extolling the Yugoslavian effort to de-nationalize by granting "ownership" of the factories to the workers; it is not necessarily an ideal outcome in Rothbard's view, but it is a much better outcome, than to remain in State hands, or in the hands of the State's previous management ("capitalists").<br /><br />I'm not sure that it is quite charitable to Rothbard to say that "he provides no method of reparation" as he had written quite extensively and I think you could find various different ideas he had over time in his writings; the piece I provided was just an article that he submitted as editor of "The Libertarian Forum".Darjeelingzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13459001964917082591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6267638155798940768.post-69564992042829428302012-06-22T10:39:35.637-07:002012-06-22T10:39:35.637-07:00Excellent read. The criticism of limiting the libe...Excellent read. The criticism of limiting the libertarian discussion to "government" vs. "private" was spot on.<br /><br />However, I find Rothbard's position contradictory... he advocates the abolition of the state, and for a society based purely free market capitalism, however he doesn't necessarily provide a transitional period where the wealth that was stolen to be brought back to the hands of those that earned it. Centuries of exploitation, colonialism, corporate welfare, imperialism, suppression of wages, poor conditions... yet he provides no method of reparation. I feel as though he acts as a kind of apologist by maintaining the mechanism of today's market intact, and advocates abolishing the state, but without realize that this would only further facilitate the inequality and inhumanity that we current see. The issue is not only the state, but the mentality the modern market has. <br /><br />The modern market is a symptom of tyranny gone astray. Although he applauds the attempts at workers' self management in Yugoslavia, which I also admire, he then fails to realize that this is at ends with his personal political philosophy of private ownership. Frankly, to be consistent, Rothbard should bring his anti-statist mentality to the workplace as well... because if owners can maintain dominance in the workplace and maintain economic leverage, have we really liberated the people at all and given them their fair earnings? <br /><br />Apply libertarian philosophy to the workplace as well, and allow individuals to be self-governing units capable of controlling their own destinies. Workers' self-management works wonders.Antonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00459481603818321531noreply@blogger.com