Soup Kitchen Economics
... which post-Marxist economists have commented on the perception of diminished asset value as stolen
Introduction to Post-Marxist Views on Value and Exploitation
Post-Marxist economists and theorists have critically re-evaluated Karl Marx’s labor theory of value, particularly the idea that capitalist profits derive from value "stolen" from workers. While Marx framed exploitation as the extraction of surplus value through labor, many post-Marxist thinkers have moved away from this labor-centric model, challenging both its historical applicability and conceptual coherence in contemporary economies. Rather than accepting the notion of value as something concretely produced by labor and then expropriated, these theorists often interpret value as a socially constituted, abstract relation embedded in capitalist structures. This shift re-frames the perception of diminished asset value—not as theft in a moral or economic sense, but as a systemic outcome of capitalist dynamics.
Moishe Postone and the Reinterpretation of Abstract Labor
Moishe Postone is one of the most influential post-Marxist theorists to reinterpret Marx’s concept of value. He distinguishes between concrete labor (actual work) and abstract labor (the social form through which labor becomes value in capitalism). According to Postone, it is not that capitalists steal value created by workers, but rather that abstract labor itself constitutes the framework of capitalist domination. In this view, both workers and capitalists are subject to the impersonal logic of value production. The perception of value being "stolen" overlooks the fact that value is not a substance transferred from worker to capitalist, but a historically specific social form that structures economic life. Postone argues that Marx’s critique targets value itself, not merely its unequal distribution.
David Graeber and the Critique of Commodity Money
David Graeber, an anthropologist and heterodox economist, challenges the Marxian narrative of money emerging from barter and value from labor. Influenced by chartalist theory, Graeber argues that money originates in state power and credit, not in commodity exchange. This undermines the classical labor theory of value, which assumes that value is inherent in commodities due to labor input. For Graeber, the idea that value is "stolen" presumes a prior, fair exchange system based on labor equivalence—a system he argues never existed. Instead, value and debt are shaped by historical, political, and institutional forces. The devaluation of assets or wages is thus not theft from a just baseline, but a feature of monetary and credit systems that predate and transcend labor relations.
Habermas and the Role of Science in Value Theory
Jürgen Habermas questioned the relevance of Marx’s labor theory in advanced capitalist societies. He argued that technology and science have become primary sources of productivity, rendering the focus on labor as the sole source of value outdated. In knowledge economies, value creation is increasingly detached from direct labor time. Habermas does not frame this as theft, but as a transformation of the economic base that Marx did not anticipate. The diminishing role of labor in value formation challenges the moral narrative of exploitation as "value theft," suggesting instead a structural shift in how value is socially generated.
Conclusion: Beyond the Notion of 'Stolen' Value
Post-Marxist economists generally reject the simplistic perception of asset value diminishment as theft. Instead, they emphasize the abstract, systemic nature of value in capitalism. Whether through Postone’s critique of abstract labor, Graeber’s historical anthropology of money, or Habermas’s focus on technological productivity, these thinkers re-frame exploitation not as a transfer of value, but as embedded in the very structure of capitalist social relations. This shift moves the discussion from moral claims of theft to a deeper critique of the value-form itself—a perspective that sees capitalism as a system that generates inequality through its logic, not merely through the actions of capitalists.
... elaborate "chartalist theory" query results
Chartalist Theory: Elaboration
Chartalism, also known as the state theory of money, asserts that money derives its value not from intrinsic worth or commodity backing (like gold), but from state authority. The theory was developed by German economist Georg Friedrich Knapp in his 1905 work The State Theory of Money, where he argued that “money is a creature of law” (charta meaning “token” or “ticket” in Latin).
Core Principles
- Tax-Driven Demand: The state creates demand for its currency by requiring taxes to be paid in it. This compels individuals and businesses to acquire the currency, giving it value.
- Fiat Money as Sovereign Tool: Modern fiat money has no intrinsic value; its legitimacy comes from legal tender laws and the state’s power to enforce its use.
- Money as an IOU: State-issued money is an asset to holders and a liability to the state—an IOU that can be redeemed by paying taxes.
- Rejection of Commodity Origins: Chartalists reject the classical narrative that money evolved from barter. Instead, money arises from state-imposed obligations, with markets adapting to the state’s monetary framework.
Relation to Post-Marxist Thought
As noted earlier, David Graeber draws on chartalist ideas to challenge Marx’s labor theory of value. He emphasizes that money originated in debt and state power, not in labor or commodity exchange. This undermines the idea that value is “stolen” from workers, as it questions the premise that value arises solely from labor in a free market. Similarly, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), or neo-chartalism, extends these ideas, arguing that sovereign governments that issue their own currency are not financially constrained—they can spend to achieve full employment, limited only by inflation and real resources, not tax revenue.
... does the theory explain inflation, not as reduced purchasing power, but as expanding the quantity of money -to keep pace with increasing population, which itself is a predicate of the successful state
The claim that inflation is not reduced purchasing power but an expansion of money supply to match population growth—a sign of a successful state—is not a standard chartalist or Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) position, and is not supported by mainstream interpretations of these theories.
Clarifying Chartalism and MMT on Inflation
- Chartalism and MMT do not define inflation as expanding the money supply to keep pace with population. Instead, they define inflation as a sustained rise in the general price level, typically caused by excess demand relative to real resource capacity—i.e., "too much spending chasing too few goods."
- MMT emphasizes that a sovereign government issuing its own currency is not revenue-constrained—it can spend first and tax later. Taxes serve to create demand for money and control inflation, not to fund spending.
- Population growth can increase demand and potentially contribute to inflationary pressures, especially if supply (housing, labor, infrastructure) does not keep pace. Some empirical studies suggest a positive correlation between population growth and inflation, particularly through housing market constraints.
Misinterpretation of the Theory
The idea that inflation is a deliberate, healthy expansion of money to match population growth misrepresents MMT. MMT does not advocate money creation in direct proportion to population. Rather, it argues that fiscal policy (spending and taxation) should be used to achieve full employment and price stability, adjusting dynamically based on real economic conditions, not demographic trends alone. Moreover, uncontrolled money creation without corresponding output growth leads to inflation, not prosperity. MMT acknowledges that the real limit on government spending is inflation, not debt or deficits.
... in the United States, the tax deduction per family filing increases as the number of dependents increases in number, seen politically as encouraging family growth
The U.S. tax system does not provide increased standard deductions based on the number of dependents. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 eliminated personal exemptions for dependents. Instead, it increased the standard deduction and expanded the Child Tax Credit (CTC).
- Standard Deduction (2025):
- Single: $15,750
- Married Filing Jointly: $31,500
- Head of Household: $23,625
(No increase based on dependents)
- Child Tax Credit (2025):
- Up to $2,200 per qualifying child under 17
- Up to $1,700 is refundable (Additional Child Tax Credit)
- A $500 nonrefundable credit is available for other dependents (e.g., older children)
- Credit for Other Dependents:
Families benefit through credits, not deductions, with the value increasing per child. The earned income tax credit (EITC) also increases with family size, benefiting larger families. While not framed as a direct deduction per dependent, the growth of tax credits with family size is widely seen as a policy incentive for family formation and childbearing, particularly for low- and middle-income households.
... the disconnect some conservatives have with leftist economic theories is not with Marxian cheating-of-labor allegations, but with critics of unchecked population growth which they perceived as less-to-go-around, the objection by conservatives being that of self-serving “advocacy”
Conservatives who critique unchecked population growth often frame it as a threat to resource availability and quality of life, arguing that more people mean "less for everyone"—a perspective rooted in Malthusian and neo-Malthusian thought. This view is frequently directed at immigration and welfare policies, with the concern that expanding populations strain infrastructure, lower wages, and degrade the environment. However, leftist and progressive critics argue that this stance is often disguised nativism or racism, using environmental concerns to justify exclusionary policies. They point out that per capita consumption in wealthy nations is a far greater driver of environmental harm than population growth in the Global South. The conservative objection to what they see as "self-serving, false advocacy" by some environmentalists stems from a belief that elites promote population control while continuing high-consumption lifestyles, thus shifting blame from systemic over-consumption to demographic trends among the poor. This tension reflects a deeper ideological divide: conservatives emphasizing limits and scarcity, and leftists emphasizing equity and structural change.
... would that the preceding analysis had been the dialectic, instead, the unequal distribution of wealth - it's present state, not historical or predicted state - might be reconciled politically rather than by confrontational rhetoric and calls for strike
Yes, applying a dialectical framework—focusing on the present state of wealth inequality rather than historical exploitation—could enable political balancing of wealth distribution through reform rather than confrontation.
Dialectical Perspective on Inequality
A dialectical approach examines wealth inequality as a systemic contradiction within capitalism: the coexistence of extreme wealth and widespread precarity. Rather than attributing this solely to labor exploitation (a historical process), it views the current distribution as an unstable synthesis that can be resolved through political action. This opens space for non-confrontational reforms—such as progressive wealth taxation, universal public services, and worker ownership—framed not as class warfare, but as corrective mechanisms to restore social equilibrium.
Political Pathways Over Conflict
Reforms like Medicare for All, tuition-free college, and Citizens’ Wealth Funds re-frame redistribution as common-sense stabilization, not radical expropriation. Similarly, campaign finance reform and Citizens’ Assemblies address how wealth distorts democracy, appealing across ideological lines. As seen in post-WWII U.S. and Nordic models, broad-based coalitions can enact significant redistribution when it is politically legitimized—not as retaliation, but as national renewal.
... democracy has a lot to do with inequality predicated as it is on majority rule because the destitute class can never be the majority
While democracy is based on majority rule, the poor—despite often being numerically dominant—do not necessarily shape policy, because economic inequality translates into political inequality. Wealthy individuals and corporations exert disproportionate influence through campaign financing, lobbying, and media control, skewing policy toward elite interests. Additionally, institutional barriers, voter suppression, and low political participation among the poor further limit their impact. Even when democracies enable redistribution, policies often reflect middle-class preferences (per "Director’s Law") rather than those of the poorest. Moreover, the poor are not a unified bloc—diverse needs and survival pressures hinder collective political action. Thus, democracy does not automatically correct inequality, as political power is not equally distributed, even when voting rights are.
... the alternative to democracy, that of the stateless state, or anarchy, restores balance by annihilation of value
Anarchist theory does not advocate "annihilation of value" as a means to restore balance, nor is anarchy equated with chaos or destruction. Instead, most anarchist traditions—particularly anarchist communism and social anarchism—seek to abolish capitalist economic value (i.e., exchange value, money, and wage labor) not through annihilation, but through transformation into a system based on use value, need, and mutual aid. Thinkers like Peter Kropotkin argued that wealth is a collective product, making it impossible to measure individual economic contribution. In this view, value under capitalism is not "stolen" in a moral sense, but socially distorted—reduced to exchange and profit rather than human well-being.
In a stateless society, value is reconstituted, not destroyed:
- Production is organized around communal needs
- Distribution follows the principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need”
- Economic activity is embedded in social relationships, not market exchange
As John Crump and Adam Buick explain, in such a society, money, prices, and markets disappear not by force, but because they become unnecessary when production is collectively managed and oriented toward use. Thus, the anarchist alternative to democracy is not value annihilation, but the democratization of the economy—replacing hierarchical, state-mediated systems with direct, federated self-management.