Marx's Historical Materialism (1 of 3)

'Marx's Historical Materialism'.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Marx
• Historical
• Materialism

[edgar0001]

This is NOT Marx's Historical Materialism". It is an extremely scholastic attempt throwing around in a useless manner definition after definition and some minor links between them, that do explain nothing and especially nothing about "Marx's Historical Materialism"

[theredscourge]

@Dropthebeats123 You're referring to real vs. nominal value. From Wikipedia: "...nominal value refers to a value expressed in money terms...in a given year or series of years. ...real value adjusts nominal value to remove effects of price changes over time. For example, changes in the nominal value of some commodity bundle over time can happen because of a change in the quantities in the bundle or their associated prices, whereas changes in real values reflect only changes in quantities."

[runalongnowhoney]

@Dropthebeats123 Value is also subjective; in the example of food, only that quantity of food which I can consume or share with others has value. If a toolmaker wants to sell me a hammer, the new hammer can only have value for me if I need a hammer. Regardless of the objective/subjective debate, the amount of socially necessary labor that is needed to make the hammer is meaningless to the consumer. Wants ( or needs) determine value and price.

[Dropthebeats123]

@runalongnowhoney Yes price can only be determined by the market, but price is not value. You can pay for food many times its value if you are starving but it doesn't change the value of the food. Value is an objective metric and price is a subjective one. Value is based on averages whereas price is based on individual scenarios.

[runalongnowhoney]

Marx' version of LTV seems logical. It fails in the marketplace though. Marx himself wrote in Capital (paraphrasing) "The owner of the goods must take them to market in order to learn their price". Labor cannot impart value, not even "socially necessary" labor. The value of any commodity can only ever be what someone else is willing to pay in order to aquire it. If someone ever can show me, with a logical argument, how this is false, then I may reconsider the validity of LTV.

[runalongnowhoney]

In my opinion, the critical mistake of organized labor in the US was their pursuit of money. Well, they got their money, and the money was spent. What unions should have demanded back in the thirties was ownership. Just one or two percent each year as part of their wage compensation package. If they had done that, by now, they would have owned a significant share of the businesses that they work for. They would have had a voice; they would have had a share of the control of the business.

[bungleminge]

@runalongnowhoney I agree provided that labour laws are decent enough to provide for reasonable real wages & working conditions. Capitalism in the US is a different kettle of fish to capitalism in the EU.

[bungleminge]

@runalongnowhoney I find the labour theory of value strangely convincing but haven't yet gotten my head around the subjective-objective value debate. It's rather complex.

[runalongnowhoney]

The problem with the word 'exploitation' is that it villifies the capitalist, and creates an illusion of victimization of the worker; neither is true.

[bungleminge]

@runalongnowhoney The problem with the word 'exploitation' is that a capitalist who employs no labour but his own makes his business survive by 'exploiting' himself, ie paying himself at least the necessary amount to reproduce his own labour-power, but putting at least some of the money back into circulation.