Google apps
Main menu

Post a Comment On: Understanding Society

"Capitalism as a heterogeneous set of practices"

7 Comments -

1 – 7 of 7
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh for f***'s sake! Capitalism is a mode of production. Someone could waste a lot of time and other people's time by trying to define it in an idiosyncratic way. One could do way worse and does here than E.K. Hunt's four institutional and behavioral characteristics in his book, A History of Economic Thought: A Critical Perpsective, pp. 1-4.

Geez! I mean really. We don't know what capitalism is?

September 5, 2016 at 3:43 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's more c**p in this blog post than time to respond to it. When there is one small class in society that privately owns and controls the means of production, it necessarily means there's another large class in society that owns labor power, the one commodity it can sell for wages in order to work, buy commodities and live. This is known as the capital social relation. As long as the capital social relation exists capitalism exists.

I tell you it's hard to read anything about Marx's labor theory of value from people who didn't take the time and effort to understand it. Please, either read and study Marx until you understand him, which will take years or leave him alone. Please.

September 5, 2016 at 3:47 PM

Blogger Dan Little said...

Sorry to say -- it's just not the case that anyone who disagrees with your advocacy for orthodox Marxist theory "hasn't taken the time and effort to understand it". That's flatly untrue -- for either Dave Elder-Vass or Dan Little. These two comments embody the dogmatism that I refer to in the post. You won't like my 1986 book THE SCIENTIFIC MARX much better than you like the point of view described here; but that's a matter of disagreement, not ignorance. It is very hard for me not to stifle a yawn at the idea of continuing to defend the labor theory of value as a meaningful piece of economic analysis. It isn't. That doesn't mean that Marx's ideas of domination, exploitation, or alienation are not valid insights into the singer once known as capitalism; it just means that LTV is a pretty useless construction.

September 5, 2016 at 4:22 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

There isn't any Marx's analysis of exploitation without his labor theory of value. Again, I dare you, I double dare you to:

1. Analyze what Marx means by value.
2. Uncover exploitation without Marx's labor theory of value.

Jeez! People who want to make a contribution have to resort to just discarding the analysis of one of the greatest minds in human history. Sad.

September 6, 2016 at 11:50 AM

Blogger Dave Elder-Vass said...

+1 to Dan's comment. In the book he's discussing I devote 8 pages to explaining why I don't accept Marx's theory of value. And I also discuss exploitation in many different places. Here's one summary paragraph:

The strength of Marx’s theory of exploitation is that it challenges the
appropriations of the benefits of production that prevail in capitalist
industrial production, and in doing so it pioneered the need for
a political economy that evaluates such appropriations. Any critical
political economy must indeed offer a basis for evaluating appropriations,
but we need one that goes beyond Marx’s in several respects.
Marx reduces questions of economic justice down to the single standard
that wage labourers deserve the full value of what they produce;
but instead we must recognise (a) that there are always multiple
potentially justified claims for a share of the benefits of production;
(b) that we require explicit consideration of ethical standards rather
than an abstract, pseudo-objective general theory in order to evaluate
these claims; and (c) that there are many more circumstances than
commodity production by wage labour in which issues of appropriative
justice arise. In doing so, we return judgements of exploitation to
the realm of ethics where they belong.

Norman Geras has written brilliantly on this: see 'The Controversy about Marx and Justice' in the New Left Review in 1985.

September 7, 2016 at 4:39 AM

Anonymous KDM said...

Interesting post, and I look forward to reading this work. However, it seems odd to me (at first blush) to consider Google and Youtube and other similar technologies as participating in 'gift' forms of exchange. Rather I think pretty clearly the purpose of those services is to gather "data" about users and sell it to advertisers, with the tacit consent of said users. This seems amenable to explanation either as an exchange of services (content,search etc) for a valuable commodity (the "data" in question), or as the capture of a resource for the purposes of profit. Or perhaps I don't fully understand the way in which 'gift' is being used here.

September 7, 2016 at 6:42 PM

Blogger Nick Rowe said...

This seems sensible to me.

If I did want to (perhaps unfairly) criticise it, I would say "it's all in Coase" and that (some? many? most?) economists already think this way. What we very loosely call a "capitalist" or "free market economy" is in fact a variety of different institutional methods for allocating resources all overlapping and competing with each other. The allocation of resources *within* the firm (or household) looks a lot more like central planning, but firms (and households) interact through markets. And "firms" can take many different forms; law firms are often partnerships, for example. But the analysis of *why* we see different forms in different places, and how they will change over time ("new institutional economics") -- yep, that needs a lotta work.

October 6, 2016 at 7:36 AM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot