Donal's argument: classic Marx and well-said, but wrong

["dlawbailey" <dlawbailey@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

                Comrade Donal,

        Between you and my arguments is a gulf of well-meaning presupposition.  
You
said something very important (and very well) which underlies the entire
battle, so let's get to it:

"If you reject the theory of value, you are left with little other than some
general theory of dialectics. The theory of value lies at the basis of the
Marxist analysis. It gives a rationale (other than envy) to workers
struggle. If you honestly believe that all profits come from trading or
distribution - then you must see that the worker is only disadvantaged by
not being rich enough to participate fully in this, that there is no
exploitation."

        The above is exactly the notion that inspires Marxists to do handsprings
and cartwheels to try and make the LTV make sense.  I'll ask you to respond
to one point.  That is: I say capitalists "trade" in the marketplace to make
their profit.  However, to say that what capitalists do in the marketplace
is just trading is like saying that what casino OWNERS do is just gambling.
The difference between the worker and the owner is the difference between
the gambler and the house.

        Yes, I believe that the worker is "only" disadvantaged by not being rich
enough.  So does Marx.  Property is what makes social class under
capitalism.

        You know that when you engage in the main business of the Irish economy 
and
lay a couple on the fillies you are putting money in the bookmaker's pocket,
win or lose.  But what can you do?  The bookies own the means by which your
wager gets to the other punters and vice versa.  They won't carry your bet
or anybody else's if they can't make a profit.  So, you never get the true
odds on your horse (and bookies are sweethearts compared to the typical
industrial capitalist).

        The rationale for the workers' struggle isn't envy.  It's the common 
sense
of wanting to get what you pay for without some bastard taking a slice he's
not entitled to.  If you, I and a few fellas were in a poker game and one
guy demanded a chip from every pot, we would tell him to piss off.  If you
were in a round of drinks at the local and somebody always demanded an extra
pint except when it was his turn to buy, he'd never drink in Ireland again.

        Yet in a capitalist economy that is exactly the kind of behavior
capitalists engage in and we accept.  Because they own the means of
production they have the power to artificially stratify income levels in
their favor by standing between us and the consumer whose needs we want to
serve.  Consider what happens to poker players if they can't play without
the guy who takes a chip out of every pot. That's the situation workers are
in.  Capitalists are the house and if capitalists can't make a profit they
will shut down the whole game.  That's what's happening now.  Capitalists
shut down the game and the economy turns down.  What do they care?  They've
got their money.

        Capitalism is a threat: Run the economy our way or there won't be an
economy to run.  Socialism is an answer to that threat.




----------------------------------------------------
Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today
Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.