Profits Are Not Confiscated Product

in #capitalism8 years ago (edited)

The Marxist idea that profit is excess value confiscated from the workers by the capitalist is patently wrong. Profit is the default income with or without a wage earner; wages are deductions from profit.

The labor theory of value, for real

The key assumption of the Marxist position is the labor theory of value. This creates the idea that the capitalist steals from the worker through profit:  the wage worker creates value through production; the capitalist confiscates the product of that the wage worker's labor for a fraction of its value and profits by selling it for its full value, the excess of which -- though rightfully owed to the laborer who generated said value -- is stolen by the capitalist.

The fallacies of the labor theory are many; perhaps the biggest one, illustrated within the above, is a huge case of affirming the consequent. Their cart is so far in front of their horse they can't even call them connected.

First, let us reaffirm one thing:  value is not created by any step of production, neither labor nor distribution nor management nor capitalization. Material goods are indeed created by labor. Value, however, ONLY exists within the minds of human beings, and is only "created" through the process of exchange -- either between human actors in the form of trade, or between a human actor and his environment through labor. A good, no matter how laboriously or skillfully crafted has no intrinsic value. INTRINSIC VALUE DOES NOT EXIST.

This can be proven:  it would be impossible for the laborer to reap said value without demand, that is someone to exchange the product of his labor to. The product of labor can only be valued if there is demand for the product, which means that the product of labor depends not up on the hours or skill involved in the labor but upon the desire of a consumer to obtain the product. The fact that there are still people that believe in the labor theory of value makes me sad for humanity.

Now back to this cart and horse...

PROFITS EXIST BEFORE LABOR

As pointed out by V. Menshikov at Mises.Org, the fact is that for a person who directly sells what he produces with no wage labor employed under him, ALL of his income is "profit". A common mistake is to view "profit" as what remains of income after wages are paid. This mistake ignores the problem of the self-employed:  with no wage labor, there is only direct profit.

We can then see that "profit" is the default state for any voluntary exchange, regardless of future costs. If the self-employed worker who directly trades his goods to his consumer is profiting, then from whom is he stealing? Himself? If we play some word games and decide that this does not qualify as "profit" then how does employing a wage worker -- who, without the prior supposedly-not-profit income could not be employed -- magically change said income into "profit"? It doesn't; value created through voluntary trade is always "profit". Even if we concede that the value must exceed the costs to be considered "profit", the self-employed worker -- assuming his revenue is enough for him to both live on and to cover his costs -- still profits even when there is no wage labor involved.

Since profit pre-exists wage labor, it cannot be said to be a deduction from any increase to income created by wage labor; wage labor can only be seen to supplement profit and as such is not in any concievable way "stolen" from the worker. The reverse isn't true either; the worker does not "steal" from the proprietor's rightly-owned profits; rather he supplements those profits in exchange for a wage.

This illustrates yet one more of the many ways in which the Labor Theory of Value is an utter crock; and yet communists, socialists and "democratic" socialists still riff their ideals based on that broken theory. I suppose it is because long-winded bores such as myself wax pedantic on the subject; I think it's high-time Average Joe threw in his two cents on this, once he's done muddying his way through the concepts of self-ownership, non-aggression and natural rights.

Thomas Shirk is a computer programmer, Voluntaryist and aspiring philosopher. Please come back to his blog and follow him on Facebook and Steemit for regular updates on Voluntaryism, capitalism and other philosophical insights

Sort:  

Yeah, but people really like to complain because it is so hard to start a business now. They are pretty much forced to work for someone. Plus there are so many government regulations that people can't afford to keep their business. Only, big corporations are left, making the rich more rich, and the poor more poor.

Agreed but this is not a function of the market it is a function of government market intervention.

Exactly, this another way government is just immoral. The free market without government would be an amazing thing! Eventually we could probably evolve into a resource-based economy without government, but that will definitely be past my lifetime...

you get an upvote for that marx comic alone haha :D

good post! no shortage of utopian dreams in the world of the 'progressive' mind.

better to be crushed early before they have a chance of putting other people into mass graves.

Glad to see you on here.

Thanks! I don't really like crushing dreams, I just wish utopians would stop to consider full implications before dragging out us bourgeois scum and hanging us.

Doesn't change the fact that as long as we keep producing the goods we can stop paying for them, thereby short circuiting what crapitalism has forced on us, ie, poverty, war, human trafficking, etc,...call it what you will.
As for Marx, you'll see a hard fork at the first international where the banksters backed him over Bakunin.
Freedom died alot that day.

How is it a fact that if you produce goods you can stop paying for them? I don't understand what you mean by this.

Is your clutch changed when you pay for it or when the mechanic completes the work?
All we have to do is keep the mechanic changing clutches.
I propose that he be free to order ANYTHING HE WANTS from the net to be delivered to his door posthaste.
This is, of course, applied across the board.
Just keep working but stop paying.

What would keep him changing clutches? How would he obtain new parts? Why would parts producers keep making clutches? Why would either not stay home and play video games or watch sports?

Where do the new parts come from?
What part of stop paying are you having trouble with?
As for the bums, yes, you are right, but when they begin to starve they will stand up and help, too.
They won't be able to find any love in the community, they will be pariahs, if they are ok with that, we already carry the bums but we carry a social worker, a supervisor, a director, and a governor to go with him, my plan cuts out their salaries, retirements, and health insurance.
Better to just carry the bums and not talk to them.

This proposal does require maturity from the masses, not something they have been bred/indoctrinated for in the last 100 years.

It is up to the visionaries to make it happen, 90% of the masses just don't care.

Unless you are ready to do the months of reading it would take to illuminate you to a level where your cognitive dissonance isn't too loud, we are really at an impasse.
And further conversation may be a waste of time.
But I got plenty to keep going if you do.

I get what you're saying now. So everyone works for free, everyone consumes for free. I see two possible issues with this.
First, some goods took more raw material and effort to produce so there will always be goods of which there are fewer (more scarce) per man-hour spent producing them.
Second, your proposal demands that people be other than they are. If people were other than they are, there are any number of grand ideas of how a society maybe ordered; however, human nature is as it is. Any system, in order to function (at all, let alone perfectly) must take into account both nature as it is, and human beings as they are.
This is just a recipe for a massive tragedy of the commons; the most desirable position for any individual within such a society would be to consume as much as possible while producing as little as possible, with no ownership stake in the commons goods -- and thus no motivation to maintain them.
As long as such an individual can count on Everyone Else doing THEIR part, he has no need to do his.

In other words, it sounds lovely, but ignores human nature.

Nesting stops at 6.

Well, no.
Your 'immutable' human nature has proven to be quite malleable, would you like links to books that can help you understand how wrong you are?
They will be by authors you'll recognize from your studies in crapitalism.

I do not refer to shifting cultural ethics and other niches of "human nature" but rather the immutable facts of what a human being is: a free-will actor which can only know the will of other free will actors through their actions.
The problem with your proposal is it will inevitably result in shortages of some goods and over-production of others. It is more fun to beta-test video games than to clean out a sewer. People will gravitate towards professions which offer the greatest comfort and leisure.
And compounding that is that you cannot know what others' preferences will be. You will not know how much of anything to produce until after it has been consumed (the calculation problem).
This is the immutable human nature I refer to: you can't know my needs and desires until I express them.
If only there were a system for communicating our values so that we can signal production levels...oh wait. There is. It's called "money".

So, I can't know what motivates people, but you can?

I agree that the slave paradigm's elite pay enough to keep the slaves mostly on the plantation, but I do not share your pessimistic view of human beings in general.
I don't agree that my accounting techniques would lead to any more shortages or overages than currently happens, I'd use the same folks and practices that they use today.
Except, the excess would accrue to the leisure of the workers rather than the wealth of the greedy, or the comfort of their hired minions.

I have seen good in people that didn't make economic sense, but then I learned the power of love.

Are you saying that you wouldn't change your kid's diaper unless you was getting paid?

You would rather play video games than live a rewarding life?

Break on through, Thomas, the whole truth lies ahead of you.
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php

You missed the point entirely; no, I don't know with certainty each person's motivation. I can know only that each person will seek to resolve his reality to match his motivation, and can only know that motivation by his actions taken in such resolution. That's entirely my point.
There may indeed be people who would rather clean a sewer than beta test video games (I would be extremely skeptical if you told me you'd honestly fall into that category); there are indeed people who value hard work, dirty work and the like. What you're missing is that those are still values they seek to manifest.
You say that you see people do good that makes no economic sense; this is senseless and shows that you only see exchanges of money as "economic sense"; the capitalist understands that any action taken to manifest your values is a profit. If you wish to lose money to feed the poor, for example, then by donating to charity (or paying extra in your taxes, if you prefer the violent and roundabout route to that end) you are still manifesting your values; you are profiting.
So changing my son's diaper, even though I was not paid money, was in fact economically sensible. I desired -- that is, preferred, placed value upon -- the hope that my son would be healthy and comfortable and took actions to ensure that. I was successful; I profited by an increase in my son's wellbeing.
If you see money as the only form of profit and economic sense, then it's no wonder you call it "crapitalism"; you misunderstand what the goal is and how it is achieved.

Ok, i'm glad to see that there is more that you value than money.
Now let's find out why you are attached to it.
If I can distribute the goods just as efficiently as the crapitalusts why would you want to continue the paradigm that separates us into haves and have nots?

Already a firm capitalist, but I didn't know of the distinction that profit pre-exists wage. Thanks, bud.

I hadn't thought of it either until I read the mises.org article... it's sheer genius and so obvious when you look at it.

Well said. You have a new follower.

Thanks for the following, mate! :)

Congratulations @thomas.shirk! You have received a personal award!

Happy Birthday - 1 Year on Steemit Happy Birthday - 1 Year on Steemit
Click on the badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.

For more information about this award, click here

By upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!

Congratulations @thomas.shirk! You received a personal award!

Happy Birthday! - You are on the Steem blockchain for 3 years!

You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking

Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!