Obama's Labor Theory of Value

The American Spectator ^ | August 13, 2012 | Ron Ross

[Cincinatus' Wife]

...Whether or not you think it's accurate to call Obama a Marxist, his perspective on how the economy works is Marxian through and through. More specifically, it is a reflection of what's referred to as Marx's "labor theory of value."

.....A belief in the labor theory of value is what explains the hostility toward profits that is so prevalent on the left. If labor is 100 percent responsible for the creation of value, profit is theft. Profits are only possible if labor is exploited and only if capitalists get what's not rightfully theirs. Likewise, property is theft, as are various forms of capital. Marx is the inventor of the word "capitalism." His turgid three volume magnum opus is titled Das Kapital.

In countless ways Marxism is an intellectual mess. Theoretically it makes no sense. In practice it has led not to utopia, but to dystopia. The most horrific and repressive regimes in the world today -- North Korea, Cuba, and Zimbabwe, for example -- are Marxian in theory and practice.

...Obama's speech reflects his deeply held belief that business owners do not deserve the share of income and wealth they receive. All value ought to go to the workers. Any other outcome is the result of "the exploitation of humans by humans." According to Marx, that's what happens under capitalism and will continue to happen until private property rights are abolished. Only then can true equality be achieved.

.....Whether or not Barack Obama is a Marxist depends on how you define Marxist. Most everyone who acts like a Marxist reacts strongly if called a Marxist. There are probably a hundred Marxists for every one who admits to being one. The birth certificate I would like to see is one that would show where Obama's ideology was born.

[pepsionice]

This labor theory of value...only works on paper. The minute that you put it into motion and level the field....it creates massive problems.

If a company of forty guys suddenly take absolute control over a small company, taking their boss and creator out of the picture, then they have to take responsibility over the forward motion of the organization. By week one, there is a discovery that you need one guy generally in charge to run day to day affairs. By week two, there are five guys against the selected guy in charge. By week three, some guys aren’t working as hard as they were in the beginning, but the appointed boss can’t fire anyone. By week four, a bill comes up but the company doesn’t have full revenue like they did in the beginning....so they debate if they should pay it or dock some workers pay. By week five, the five guys who had their pay docked to meet the bill....figure out that they were the lazy guys. By week six, the five guys want a union established....shocking the entire crew. By week seven, twenty guys call in sick. By week eight....the company is losing cash flow every single day, and half the employees don’t care.

It is that simple.

[vanilla swirl]

so, since Obama never laboured at a job everything he has is stolen from the workers.

[RayChuang88]

Ask any elderly survivor of Stalin’s purges in the former Soviet Union and Mao’s “re-education camps” in China how well Marxism worked....

[Makana]

Thanks for bring the concept of Value into the discussion of economics/politics. The communist theory doesn't account for the scarcity of goods and the competition among users for those goods. It presumes that bureaucrats can plan for the infinite vagaries of buyer wants and needs. Hence, the thriving black markets in totalitarian regimes which serve those true wants and needs.

Secondly, by eliminating the role of Capital in the Means of Production/Labor/Capital equation, labor-intensive processes are artificially maintained and sustained. The results of those processes are overpriced and undervalued in the marketplace.

[BitWielder1]

Even in the various "Worker's Paradise" attempts, the laborers did not benefit in any way.
In old Soviet, the only way up was to join the communist party.
And there they had a strict hierarchy is seems, completely at odds with their official equality slogans.

[MrB]

100 Marxists for every one that admits it?
Close... I’d guess higher.
I have yet to run into someone that espouses Marxist ideology that will admit that they are a Marxist.

But, I have run into a lot of “liberals” that will defend Van Jones as NOT being a Marxist.

I’ve come up with an analogy, though:
“I support waddling, feathered, billed, quacking, waddling, and swimming birds, but I’m not a ‘duckist’!”

[ripley]

“I have yet to run into someone that espouses Marxism that will admit that they are a Marxist...”

The devil of Marxism convinces them that they’re brilliant intellectuals, intensley smart, above the knuckle-dragging religionists who surround them, yet they don’t think they’re espousing Marxism, but only “public policy” that furthers social justice, in a “brilliant” manner.

IMHO

[MrB]

Appealing to the intellectual arrogance of (mostly) the youth is one of the major recruiting tools of the communists.

(You can still trust the communists to be communists - Swartz, Noebel)

[Amntn]

Thank you for posting this. This is what people need to understand about the real danger we face if Obama is reelected. The following is from this article and everyone who says there is no difference between Obama and Romney need to read it.

"All value ought to go to the workers. Any other outcome is the result of "the exploitation of humans by humans." According to Marx, that's what happens under capitalism and will continue to happen until private property rights are abolished. Only then can true equality be achieved."

[ripley]

“You can still trust the communists to be communists - Swartz, Noebel.”

I was delighted to learn that there is an update to the original in the 1960’s.

[MrB]

He didn’t have to update much... Noebel even said as much.

The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists) are still using the same playbook, part of which is denying their agenda and marginalizing anyone that points out their agenda.

[Talisker]

In countless ways Marxism is an intellectual mess. Theoretically it makes no sense. In practice it has led not to utopia, but to dystopia. The most horrific and repressive regimes in the world today -- North Korea, Cuba, and Zimbabwe, for example -- are Marxian in theory and practice.

Marxism is not, and has never been, about economics.

Marxism is, and has always been, a neurolinguistic programming method to compel victims to demand totalitarian control over themselves, in the name of being free from tyranny.

Marxism accomplishes this by always claiming to be in support of the workers, through demanding so-called protections for workers that only totalitarianism could provide. But at the same time, it destroys all worker protections against totalitarian abuse, and dismantles the naturally complex, but automatic, economic balancing effects of a free market.

Stripped of all it's economic lies, it is s simple power grab BY COMPETING ECONOMIC POWERS PRETENDING TO BE GOVERNMENTS that boils down to "give me all your money, and trust me to use it only to protect you."

Seen in purely economic terms, it's the creation of corporate mega-monopolies called "governments" that corner the market on literally everything.

As such, the two classes of people it attracts are fools and tyrants.

[Talisker]

In old Soviet, the only way up was to join the communist party. there they had a strict hierarchy is seems, completely at odds with their official equality slogans.

It's not so different here.

What you belong to behind the scenes is the majority of what people consider anymore.

In a collectivist country, I can understand it as a matter of survival.

To sabotage American freedom with it is beyond despicable.

Collectivist countries have survivors. America is drowning in its worms.