Karl Marx's "Exploitation Theory" busted!

Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk (Born February 12, 1851; Died 1914) was in the right place at the right time to contribute importantly to the development of Austrian economics. Studying at the University of Vienna, he was twenty years old when Carl Menger's Principles of Economics appeared in print in 1871. His formal university training was in law (and thus he was not actually a student of Menger's), but after completing his doctorate in law in 1875, he began preparing himself both at home and abroad to teach economics in his native Austria.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Anarcho-capitalism
• Austrian economics

[HoRostam]

I don't get it. So, workers don't sell their products, they sell their labor, and in a hypothetical no-cost economy, everything would be profit? That's true, but this redefinition isn't an argument against exploitation, this redefinition IS exploitation, clearly. Everything is profit at some zero-level, ok... but then a bunch of people don't get to have any because they don't really own the commodities. This is purely by definition, not some fundamental truth. The definition IS the problem

[kurt44mg42]

@HoRostam In a capitalist society, Marx's theory of exploitation erroneously posits that workers unjustly receive a smaller sum for the products they produce than the capitalist receives in selling them. Hence, he believed this difference or 'surplus value' rightly belongs to the worker. However, the theory fails to take into account the discount of future goods over present goods. See the video, "Socialist Theory of Interest Crushed by Boehm-Bawerk!" for more details.

[335jmb335]

The argument that always derives from these sorts of debates comes down to a single ethical concern: is it morally okay to rent another human being's labor for the purpose of your own self-interest? I find it irrelevant on whether or not a human wants to be rented. Is it okay to claim, for a period, ownership of another human being's labor? We don't accept prostitution or slavery, but these are also factions of the same kind. Namely, can a human be owned (the timeframe is irrelevant).

[kurt44mg42]

@ 335jmb335 In a historical sense, Austrians do not disagree with Marxists that there has been one class of people that have exploited another class; i.e., slave-owners exploiting slaves and fuedal lords exploiting serfs. However, Marx's theory was deeply flawed when he wrote in "Das Kapital" that the exploited were the workers (proleteriat) and the exploiters were the capitalists. Type, Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis | Hans-Hermann Hoppe in the search bar for...enlightenment!

[Mythyval]

@kurt44mg42 I'm not sure Marx is making a moral argument to the extent that you're implying. At least in Capital, he is more interested in showing how the capitalist economy works and the observable effect it has on the worker.

[blackmichael75]

This amply demonstrates the vacuity and sheer muddle-headedness of bourgeois economics, and it's naive Panglossian nature. Not only is this confused about the real nature of profit-making, it totally fails to take into account previously existing power differentials that effect outcomes. That is, it takes no reckoning of class structures. It derives from its ingeniously false and out-dated premises an utterly wrong conclusion.

[jonblaze32]

Obviously, one cannot begin to deconstruct Marx's view on exploitation in a 10 minute video, especially given the disjointed format, the interjection of unsubstantiated premises, and a general ignorance of what modern Marxists believe about exploitation.

[espaldito]

@chartrand wages are paid before the product is finally sold. Profits are the result of the final product sale minus the costs of production—including wages.

In capitalism the wage of a single worker maybe minimal in relation to the profit of a whole enterprise, but all workers must get paid. Also, by profiting the company can continue to employ the workers in time.

There is no argument to support that profit always comes at the expense of someone or something. It is available as investment.

[espaldito]

@michaelevans1984 in any society present goods worth more than future goods.

[michaelevans1984]

Are you trying to argue that capitalism is the fairest form of social organisation simply because Marx did not take into account the fact that present goods are worth more than future goods, IN A CAPITALIST SOCIETY?

Capitalist investors are only essential in a capitalist society. In a fairer world, where a much greater proportion of the world than the current 1% will own 90% of the world's total wealth, this role will be undertaken by central govt FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYONE RATHER THAN A FEW.