Tristan

Are you honestly telling us you can't see the self-contradictions in what you're saying.

I started to point them out, but stopped at 7, and many of them are stand-alone refutations of your whole theory.

What I can't understand is, firstly you should be able to spot them yourself. Secondly, even Marxists must have pointed them out in the 150 years since Marx was writing. Thirdly, even after I have pointed them out, you just keep repeating them over and over and over and over and over and over again.

What gives? Do you just not care that what you're saying doesn't make any logical sense? Do you think it doesn't matter that what you're saying is untrue?

Whatever your answer is, what we have established that
a) no-one can defend Marx's theory in its own right; even the Marxists admit that it was erroneous
b) the common left-wing fall-back position, of arguing that despite the errors of Marx's theory, it's still valuable as theory, cannot be maintained without either relying on its errors, or failing to distinguish between the public and private control of the means of production.

By the way, notice how all of the leftists who assert or imply the validity of Marx's theory, just slink away when challenged, leaving Tristan to try to brazen it out by his technique of invincible ignorance?

That's it people. That's the intellectual foundation of the left wing. You're looking at it laid bare.

Like I said, no-one can be as dumb as you guys are pretending.

JKJ tries to make a sweeping dismissal without referring to anything *SPECIFIC* - and as a consequence he doesn't explain or justify his rejection of specific claims I have made with regards Marxist categories and concepts that remain valid. He presents rhetoric without content. It's hard to take his dismissals seriously. Though those who want to believe him will accept what he says despite the fact is involves almost no actual content.

How about you answer the SPECIFIC points I have repeatedly explained and justified?

1. You have no basis for your argument about "surplus value", and therefore you whole argument about exploitation collapses, and therefore your whole argument collapses.

Marx's argument about alleged surplus value was based on the labour theory of value, which you have conceded is incorrect.

But because you don't understand Marx's theory, you misunderstand the problem. The LTV doesn't just fail to come to terms with different kinds of labour. It fails to prove *that the value of the end product is imputable solely to the labour factors*.

Therefore you have conceded that Marx's process of reasoning:
market value of final product, minus market value of wages = expropriated surplus value = exploitation
is wrong.

Now you're contradicting yourself in alleging some "surplus value" exploitatively expropriated by the capitalist.

Now you have the gall to say I haven't specified anything, when I asked you to prove surplus value relative to what, and you dishonestly ignored it TWICE.

That disproves your entire critique as to capitalism, which is based on Marx's exploitation theory.

2.
And secondly, you haven't proved that socialisation of the means of production would make the worker better off. We are already seeing that in the destruction of Australian businesses caused by democratic socialist overheads
SPC
Alcoa
Qantas
that the workers are WORSE OFF, not better off, as a result of trying to extort a non-existent "surplus value" from capitalists.

There is no need for me to waste time citing further proofs - and there are many - of why your adherence to socialist policies is unjustified, even in your own terms; until you answer these two SPECIFIC critiques.

We have just established that you cannot defend any of Marx's economic or social theory, because ALL that you assert depends on proposition you concede are wrong.

So I ask again, why do keep saying things that are self-contradictory?

How come you guys don't care that that what you're saying is untrue?

JKJ; First you can believe in the MECHANISM of surplus value even if you don't believe there is an objective and universal measure of the value of all labour. This is similar to Eduard Bernstein's position.

Take the example of Bangladeshi textiles workers. There's no objective, universal measure of labour's value. Some might argue a doctor deserves a higher wage - that's a subjective judgement. But when those textiles workers are receiving less than 5% of the proceeds of what they produce you can be certain they're being exploited; Effectively - there is unpaid labour time. Again: the MECHANISM exists regardless of the absence an objective and universe measure of the value of ALL kinds of labour.... And the falling wage share of the economy and increasing working hours/working life shows that exploitation is increasing.

This is also regardless of other factors. As I've suggested earlier. Marx did not anticipate the emergence of small investors who have made great personal sacrifice deserve a return on investment. Those who have 'deferred gratification' under circumstances of hardship and sacrifice deserve a return. Those who have inherited enormous wealth don't fall into this category.

Also there are the costs of distribution and exchange. And even if labour pertaining to that is 'unproductive' in the Marxist sense - they are still crucial to the economy.

Also there's the share taken by the state in providing infrastructure; But with user pays, austerity and regressive taxation - workers in their capacity as citizens and taxpayers are 'picking up more of the tab' for capitalists.

Why not 100%?

Do you mean in Bangladesh? Well in that case my ideal scenario would be producer's co-operatives owning 100% of any enterprise. Consolidated as much as possible to maximise economies of scale. But there would have to be an accounting for transport, marketing, retail etc. These are structural costs that exist outside of the extraction of surplus value for the workers in any single textiles enterprise. But once all these costs had been accounted for the workers should receive 100% of the remaining returns. And in order to make a fair return for the workers that might mean the price needs to increase substantially. Competitive enough to maintain market share - but as much of a return as is possible in that context. And if it means it costs us an extra $10 for a shirt, then so be it. Rigorous health and safety regulations need to be part of the picture given recent events as well.