I've encountered very few "principled Marxists" who will even mention the LTV, much less make some sort of serious intellectual defense of it. The "ideology" isn't that complicated in practice. People just want free shit. Any reason to be given handouts will always be popular.
The crazy thing about Marxism and all modern ideologies is how its principles of a mechanistic universe is just accepted as true without argument. Once you dispel this fiction it all falls apart which is why all modern ideas progressive liberalism, communism, libertarianism all fail and lead to garbage societies. The world simply isn’t mechanistic
The materialist philosophies, rather than admit their ideas never close, continually extend their framework out forever. By refusing to just settle on a simple teleological "good" they must push it off into the distant "elsewhere," where they assure us it really exists, and it is definitely objective, even if we aren't close enough yet to see the material facts which make it objective or to really even define what it is.
I think this is why they so often end up being utopian in character. They still need a motivating "why" to get us to go along with their plan, but without a simple "good" to pursue, they have to postulate a theoretical perfect state, and the reaching of that perfect state becomes the "good". Being directionally toward utopia becomes the telos of the materialist.
This article has an engagement rate of 2.5% while The Bulwark only gets 0.071%. Math is fun when it demonstrates that your enemies are lying about their work!
The Good News: There's a long-standing Christian set of theories about these problems, which are rooted in teleological good. Re-Christianize society, and it can re-emerge to take primacy.
The Bad News: Movements are mostly the sum of the people they attract, and only secondarily their ideas. Many of the same people attracted to Marxism would switch to the Christian theories if their societies offered that while seriously penalizing Marxism. So Marxism becomes much less of a threat, but absent effective internal gatekeeping the people in question will drag the replacement doctrines of justice to similar places - all because of who and what they ARE.
An argument between competing teleologies would at least be honest. Because we're not supposed to admit to teleology, we're locked in an endless argument over what to measure and how.
I think the better way to think of it is that Marxism creates a new religion; one able to create a new telos based supposedly on science and reasoning, whose underlying flaws no one dares criticize in fear of being branded a heretic. It matters not what they actually believe in, they just join the Church of Marx (hallowed be his name) and under it they justify all the moralistic views they embrace. A modern day Napoleonic Cult of Reason - it always runs back to the French Revolution in the end. For me, it really does prove that Man has a God shaped hole, that he will eventually fill.
Marxism proper isn’t at all moralistic — and divergence between ‘Marxists’ are much more like Protestant fracturing than this odd Catholic projection you’re manufacturing.
I think that his theories were being lauded by his followers as scientific without any other merit, and at the same time he was the one that referred to religion as the opium of the masses. In this vein it creates a moral standard, it's just how far the followers will take it.
I don’t think the labor theory of value is necessary for Marxism‘s central point, and I would say that Marxism may have something important to add to economics. So I wish Marxists would ditch the labor theory of value and try to model class conflict within modern economic theory. As I understand it, Marxism's central claims could be phrased as:
1. The employer’s/capitalist‘s interest to keep labor costs low and the employee‘s/worker‘s interest in high wages are at odds with each other.
2. State power can significantly influence the bargaining power of either side, so both sides have an interest in gaining control of the state.
3. Capitalists need workers not only as employees but also as consumers, so they need there to be workers, but workers don’t need capitalists, because they could manage labor allocation and use of the means of production through other means like central planning or cooperatives.
Depending on the extend one agrees or disagrees with these premises a communist revolution can be anywhere from impossible to inevitable (to be clear, I think 3. is probably not true and that there may be some issues with 1. as well). But it doesn't say if such a revolution would be good or bad. There could be a hypothetical Communist who thinks a revolution would be an ethical disaster, but joins the communist party anyways because they are convinced the revolution is coming and want to protect themselves. Or the less hypothetical reverse of that position "Communism sounds good in theory (=is morally desirable), but doesn't work in practice (=has false beliefs about economic processes)." Since (Neo-)Classical also often has implicit assumptions, for example "material abundance is good", making moral questions of economic issues more explicit also makes sense. But both Marxism and (Neo-)Classical Economics make some moral and some mechanistic claims, which can and should be discussed seperately.
‘Modern economic theory’ in question being the Transgender Theory of Value.
The only modernizations Marxism strictly needs has already been accomplished with sino-marxists Michael Hudson etc.
More correct propositions:
1. There are classes whose differences are in there method of reproduction of themselves. The most important are the bourgeoisie (with many subfactions) who as Industrial bourgeois have some sort of managerial (although still parasitic) role, who are being subsumed by the rentier bourgeois, who are now the preeminent faction of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat who reproduce themselves solely on the basis of labor are the vanguard of the new society. The peasantry (excluding Kulaks) also reproduce themselves on the basis of some small amount of property in addition to their own labor.
2. These classes inevitably struggle, and this struggle inevitably is/becomes on a certain collective political basis, necessarily in the background of state power. The battle coalesces around the proletariat on one side and the exploiting classes on another, and the proletariat eventually wins on the basis of the degeneration of the previous order and its inability to cope with existing conditions. The state thus becomes proletarian.
I could elaborate quite a bit more but I think this is at least sufficient.
There is something to be learned from Marx's observations, a bit less from his theorizing, but not nothing whatsoever.
I would answer your comment by asserting that the central flaw of Marx's polemics, is scalability. His was not a utopian political philosophy; collectivism can function in small intentional communities, but entropy obtains, and we must not forget that a "dictatorship of the proletariat" as transitional to what essentially is a form of anarcho-syndicalism, was never intended or destined to be transitional.
Dave, "It is unhelpful to mix your somewhat defensible moral claims with bad science"
Dave translated, "Why do you throw dirt in my eyes during our fencing match"
My favorite is conservatives trying to disprove climate change science when the more important framing is who gets the tax dollars for maintaining and improving civilizational infrastructure
The fact is that LTV doesn't exist outside of some sort of social whole (Capital vol. 3) and exists objectively in it. I suppose you may derive that as somewhat 'subjective' but this is as much a difficulty of the subject-object distinction itself as it is your own one sidedness. This is embedded in a capitalist economic system which objectively brings with it certain objective material conditions, which will also change as history continues moving. Marx never says anything about 'social acceptibility' even that I can remember, I have no Idea where you're pulling that from.. Ability to directly see LTV and EV was a historically contingent phenomona.
LTV is also just good common sense. Value added is price minus cost of natural resources and the neccessary things (after correcting for rent-distortions which is basically impossible in the modern age, but, again, is meant to be seen in a socially holistic rather than an individualistic way).
"I don't understand Marx so I'm going to set up a strawman and misrepresent Marx to people who understand Marx even less so I can satiate the emptiness of my own intellect".
Why would I change my meta frame when Marxism has been sufficient at the very least in the realm of economics and all this man can muster is ‘LTV is subjective because UV is subjective?’
Like whoever heard of critiquing a dead man whose masterwork is half-finished for not sufficiently anticipating the modern day?
The basis of Marx's hedging with social utility was, in fairness, a nod toward resource finitude. As to LTV, there is a certain empiricism that validates it, but it becomes very messy of attribution, which is to the OP's point.
The ultimate condemnation of Marxism, as far as I'm concerned, is argument based on hierarchical inevitability and control of resource rationing. That primary consideration has a runner-up with individualized need and the failure of central supply-side planning to anticipate changing circumstance.
The internal conflict within Marxist thought is highlighted by one specific example; the power struggle between Stalin and Trotsky as Lenin's health worsened. Fundamentally, the only way to enforce a transitional dictatorship of the proletariat, is by compelling economic stasis, an obviously unviable long-term program.
One can have some sympathy for unforced, localized collectivism of the type facilitated by utopian socialist William Morris. His was a kindly, rather pretty naivete.
At the end of the day, the ultimate failure of central planning is that it consolidates power in a fashion that incentivizes and facilitates corruption. Whereas we may charitably forgive the touching naivete of a Morris, nether Marx nor Engels were so burdened; their advocacy of dialectical materialism demonstrates the fact that they never truly believed in the perfectibility of humans in the way they appeared to espouse it.
As an element of exposition, LTV does complement the distinction between use value and exchange value. It is premature to elide that distinction, considering what we readily observe of currency debasement. Ultimately, it comes down to monetary velocity at given points of the distribution curve. For all of his other fanciful notions, Vilifred Pareto wasn't wrong about his distribution curves.
Central planning isn’t a necessity of Marxism but the simple requirement at the time for a sovereign economic system.
Even insofar as there is a Marxist tendency towards more planning issues like the famines are not liable to happen again because of the compound issues that led to them in the first place, forgetting economic socialism like the NEP or modern China.
Economic stasis is a terrible word to describe the USSR until Brezhnev, and even that was savable if Andropov could’ve lasted for a decade or so.
Not to facebook boomer too hard here, but is it a coincidence that Marxism/Rawlsianism/Gay Race Communism always seems to converge on an inversion of the good, as understood traditionally?
The abandonment of telos _in order to pursue moral ends_ is as absurd as it is contradictory. I appreciate the honesty of leftists like de Sade.
"This of course creates similar problems as the new Rawlsians are required to fetishize a twisted version of free choice just like the classic Marxists were forced to fetishize a twisted version of labor value."
Have you (or anyone you'd recommend) written about this? I've always been interested in reading a dissection of Rawlsianism from a non-enlightment viewpoint.
(Charles Heywood is also a Rawls critic, but I have yet to read anything completely satisfying from him on the topic.)
I've encountered very few "principled Marxists" who will even mention the LTV, much less make some sort of serious intellectual defense of it. The "ideology" isn't that complicated in practice. People just want free shit. Any reason to be given handouts will always be popular.
The wayward sheep must be brought home
The crazy thing about Marxism and all modern ideologies is how its principles of a mechanistic universe is just accepted as true without argument. Once you dispel this fiction it all falls apart which is why all modern ideas progressive liberalism, communism, libertarianism all fail and lead to garbage societies. The world simply isn’t mechanistic
Will you substantiate the strange allegation that Marxism supports a ‘mechanistic universe?’
Marxism is based on materialism, which is a false philosophy so it gets everything else wrong
The materialist philosophies, rather than admit their ideas never close, continually extend their framework out forever. By refusing to just settle on a simple teleological "good" they must push it off into the distant "elsewhere," where they assure us it really exists, and it is definitely objective, even if we aren't close enough yet to see the material facts which make it objective or to really even define what it is.
I think this is why they so often end up being utopian in character. They still need a motivating "why" to get us to go along with their plan, but without a simple "good" to pursue, they have to postulate a theoretical perfect state, and the reaching of that perfect state becomes the "good". Being directionally toward utopia becomes the telos of the materialist.
A lot of classical Marxist types are actually much more pleasant people than the mainstream left wingers at least.
True
This article has an engagement rate of 2.5% while The Bulwark only gets 0.071%. Math is fun when it demonstrates that your enemies are lying about their work!
Also good article, as usual.
The Good News: There's a long-standing Christian set of theories about these problems, which are rooted in teleological good. Re-Christianize society, and it can re-emerge to take primacy.
The Bad News: Movements are mostly the sum of the people they attract, and only secondarily their ideas. Many of the same people attracted to Marxism would switch to the Christian theories if their societies offered that while seriously penalizing Marxism. So Marxism becomes much less of a threat, but absent effective internal gatekeeping the people in question will drag the replacement doctrines of justice to similar places - all because of who and what they ARE.
An argument between competing teleologies would at least be honest. Because we're not supposed to admit to teleology, we're locked in an endless argument over what to measure and how.
exactly
I think the better way to think of it is that Marxism creates a new religion; one able to create a new telos based supposedly on science and reasoning, whose underlying flaws no one dares criticize in fear of being branded a heretic. It matters not what they actually believe in, they just join the Church of Marx (hallowed be his name) and under it they justify all the moralistic views they embrace. A modern day Napoleonic Cult of Reason - it always runs back to the French Revolution in the end. For me, it really does prove that Man has a God shaped hole, that he will eventually fill.
Marxism proper isn’t at all moralistic — and divergence between ‘Marxists’ are much more like Protestant fracturing than this odd Catholic projection you’re manufacturing.
I think that his theories were being lauded by his followers as scientific without any other merit, and at the same time he was the one that referred to religion as the opium of the masses. In this vein it creates a moral standard, it's just how far the followers will take it.
There is much to support your assertion.
I don’t think the labor theory of value is necessary for Marxism‘s central point, and I would say that Marxism may have something important to add to economics. So I wish Marxists would ditch the labor theory of value and try to model class conflict within modern economic theory. As I understand it, Marxism's central claims could be phrased as:
1. The employer’s/capitalist‘s interest to keep labor costs low and the employee‘s/worker‘s interest in high wages are at odds with each other.
2. State power can significantly influence the bargaining power of either side, so both sides have an interest in gaining control of the state.
3. Capitalists need workers not only as employees but also as consumers, so they need there to be workers, but workers don’t need capitalists, because they could manage labor allocation and use of the means of production through other means like central planning or cooperatives.
Depending on the extend one agrees or disagrees with these premises a communist revolution can be anywhere from impossible to inevitable (to be clear, I think 3. is probably not true and that there may be some issues with 1. as well). But it doesn't say if such a revolution would be good or bad. There could be a hypothetical Communist who thinks a revolution would be an ethical disaster, but joins the communist party anyways because they are convinced the revolution is coming and want to protect themselves. Or the less hypothetical reverse of that position "Communism sounds good in theory (=is morally desirable), but doesn't work in practice (=has false beliefs about economic processes)." Since (Neo-)Classical also often has implicit assumptions, for example "material abundance is good", making moral questions of economic issues more explicit also makes sense. But both Marxism and (Neo-)Classical Economics make some moral and some mechanistic claims, which can and should be discussed seperately.
‘Modern economic theory’ in question being the Transgender Theory of Value.
The only modernizations Marxism strictly needs has already been accomplished with sino-marxists Michael Hudson etc.
More correct propositions:
1. There are classes whose differences are in there method of reproduction of themselves. The most important are the bourgeoisie (with many subfactions) who as Industrial bourgeois have some sort of managerial (although still parasitic) role, who are being subsumed by the rentier bourgeois, who are now the preeminent faction of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat who reproduce themselves solely on the basis of labor are the vanguard of the new society. The peasantry (excluding Kulaks) also reproduce themselves on the basis of some small amount of property in addition to their own labor.
2. These classes inevitably struggle, and this struggle inevitably is/becomes on a certain collective political basis, necessarily in the background of state power. The battle coalesces around the proletariat on one side and the exploiting classes on another, and the proletariat eventually wins on the basis of the degeneration of the previous order and its inability to cope with existing conditions. The state thus becomes proletarian.
I could elaborate quite a bit more but I think this is at least sufficient.
A nicely balanced comment.
There is something to be learned from Marx's observations, a bit less from his theorizing, but not nothing whatsoever.
I would answer your comment by asserting that the central flaw of Marx's polemics, is scalability. His was not a utopian political philosophy; collectivism can function in small intentional communities, but entropy obtains, and we must not forget that a "dictatorship of the proletariat" as transitional to what essentially is a form of anarcho-syndicalism, was never intended or destined to be transitional.
Dave, "It is unhelpful to mix your somewhat defensible moral claims with bad science"
Dave translated, "Why do you throw dirt in my eyes during our fencing match"
My favorite is conservatives trying to disprove climate change science when the more important framing is who gets the tax dollars for maintaining and improving civilizational infrastructure
Ok… fair… sort of
The fact is that LTV doesn't exist outside of some sort of social whole (Capital vol. 3) and exists objectively in it. I suppose you may derive that as somewhat 'subjective' but this is as much a difficulty of the subject-object distinction itself as it is your own one sidedness. This is embedded in a capitalist economic system which objectively brings with it certain objective material conditions, which will also change as history continues moving. Marx never says anything about 'social acceptibility' even that I can remember, I have no Idea where you're pulling that from.. Ability to directly see LTV and EV was a historically contingent phenomona.
LTV is also just good common sense. Value added is price minus cost of natural resources and the neccessary things (after correcting for rent-distortions which is basically impossible in the modern age, but, again, is meant to be seen in a socially holistic rather than an individualistic way).
Not to mention the use of LTV in terms of determining the real value of work as seen in service work controversy instead of autofellatio STV
"I don't understand Marx so I'm going to set up a strawman and misrepresent Marx to people who understand Marx even less so I can satiate the emptiness of my own intellect".
Where is my error? I am happy to entertain debate on this.
It's an open 'stack. If you have an argument, present it. Ad hominem is not an argument.
Unfortunately, I don't think the Marxists will rethink their frame.
Still, praying for them to change is something I do.
Why would I change my meta frame when Marxism has been sufficient at the very least in the realm of economics and all this man can muster is ‘LTV is subjective because UV is subjective?’
Like whoever heard of critiquing a dead man whose masterwork is half-finished for not sufficiently anticipating the modern day?
The basis of Marx's hedging with social utility was, in fairness, a nod toward resource finitude. As to LTV, there is a certain empiricism that validates it, but it becomes very messy of attribution, which is to the OP's point.
The ultimate condemnation of Marxism, as far as I'm concerned, is argument based on hierarchical inevitability and control of resource rationing. That primary consideration has a runner-up with individualized need and the failure of central supply-side planning to anticipate changing circumstance.
The internal conflict within Marxist thought is highlighted by one specific example; the power struggle between Stalin and Trotsky as Lenin's health worsened. Fundamentally, the only way to enforce a transitional dictatorship of the proletariat, is by compelling economic stasis, an obviously unviable long-term program.
One can have some sympathy for unforced, localized collectivism of the type facilitated by utopian socialist William Morris. His was a kindly, rather pretty naivete.
At the end of the day, the ultimate failure of central planning is that it consolidates power in a fashion that incentivizes and facilitates corruption. Whereas we may charitably forgive the touching naivete of a Morris, nether Marx nor Engels were so burdened; their advocacy of dialectical materialism demonstrates the fact that they never truly believed in the perfectibility of humans in the way they appeared to espouse it.
As an element of exposition, LTV does complement the distinction between use value and exchange value. It is premature to elide that distinction, considering what we readily observe of currency debasement. Ultimately, it comes down to monetary velocity at given points of the distribution curve. For all of his other fanciful notions, Vilifred Pareto wasn't wrong about his distribution curves.
Central planning isn’t a necessity of Marxism but the simple requirement at the time for a sovereign economic system.
Even insofar as there is a Marxist tendency towards more planning issues like the famines are not liable to happen again because of the compound issues that led to them in the first place, forgetting economic socialism like the NEP or modern China.
Economic stasis is a terrible word to describe the USSR until Brezhnev, and even that was savable if Andropov could’ve lasted for a decade or so.
Not to facebook boomer too hard here, but is it a coincidence that Marxism/Rawlsianism/Gay Race Communism always seems to converge on an inversion of the good, as understood traditionally?
The abandonment of telos _in order to pursue moral ends_ is as absurd as it is contradictory. I appreciate the honesty of leftists like de Sade.
Marxists today agree on Debt Jubilees which is absolutely part of the traditional understanding of the good
"This of course creates similar problems as the new Rawlsians are required to fetishize a twisted version of free choice just like the classic Marxists were forced to fetishize a twisted version of labor value."
Have you (or anyone you'd recommend) written about this? I've always been interested in reading a dissection of Rawlsianism from a non-enlightment viewpoint.
(Charles Heywood is also a Rawls critic, but I have yet to read anything completely satisfying from him on the topic.)