/lit/ - Literature

>>13507531
LTV is neither true nor false. It's a system for calculating price and value.

Was he right about Religion being the Opiate of the Masses, at least?

>>13507531
saying things are "wrong" isn't an argument

>>13507544
LTV and falling rate of profits are both empirically unproven.

>>13507558
>lack of evidence makes something wrong
Yikes

>>13507540
Insofar as that's ALL it is, then yes he was. Marx, and most other atheists, fail to grasp just HOW important religion is to many people, and how it can lead them to behave in ways that don't make sense from a purely materialist perspective. There are many people throughout history, like St. Francis of Assisi, whose actions throughout their lives don't properly align with Marx's understanding of human behavior.

>historical materialism is untrue
This is a good bait

>>13507565
Not even that. It's when someone tries to present evidence for LTV, they fail. Like Paul Cockbutt's embarrassing attempt.

>>13507558
uhh anon

>>13507570
>St. Francis of Assisi, whose actions throughout their lives don't properly align with Marx's understanding of human behavior.
I don't think you understand Marx

Marxism is a science. This is like complaining about Euler or Gauss because they might not have gotten it all correct

>>13507600
Science is falsifiable...

>>13507600
>Marxism is a science
LMAO. Yeah marxism has had comparable applications to the theories of Newton or von Neumann.

Also euler and Gauss were mathematicians not scentists.(Gauss did have some contributions to physics but he is known for his math)

Holy shit m8 do not debase yourself like this.

>>13507589
>Kliman
Yikes. He doesn't even measure profit correctly.

>>13507531
>Marx's doomsday predictions about capitalism are wrong
He's wrong in the worst worst possible way about this. Capitalist society falls into crisis again and again but the people will not fight to replace this system. It's really depressing to think how this could all change, yet people are slowly warming up to the idea that we need to live like slavish insects in order to outproduce and outcompete against the Chinese in this race to the bottom.

>>13507622
What we need is another war. Not even joking.

>>13507531
Hay give him some credit, he said it was all hogwash and it wouldent work

>tfw you realize that Hegel is the true mastermind, even from beyond the grave
>tfw you find out about Hegel's occult interests and his connections with hermeticism
>tfw you realize that the Dialectic is a magic spell
>tfw you realize that Marx was puppeteered from beyond the grave by Hegel's terrible sorcery
>tfw you realize the entire 20th Century was controlled by Hegel's magic

>>13507657
We'll get one alright... don't you worry. This one will be between good and evil.

>>13507713
Did he predict humanity's enslavement to capital?

>>13507531
>Rate of profit isn't declining

>>13507752
Kind of. Go read what he wrote. He definitely predicted the complete atomization of Western men.

>>13507757
Prove it bitch

>>13507657
>>What we need is another war. Not even joking.
War isn't a simple thing, but even then it is too simple of a solution to an entire society whose minds are so thoroughly submerged in capitalism that they can't even conceive what pre-capitalist society was like, much less what a post-capitalist society might look like. Just think about those retarded rebuttals to anti-capitalism. Trade = capitalism, workers would starve if there were no bosses around, capitalism is the natural state of the human being. It's not going to be easy to sort out all of this stuff, but it seems like the next war will have some people trying to restore capitalism to some mythic past.

>>13507534
assuming that the value of a good is directly proportional to the amount of time it took to construct it is very brainlet indeed

the fact that he refused to account for personal desire and scarcity, ergo supply and demand, already shows his ideological bent

>>13507808
>workers would starve if there were no bosses around,
theres always going to be bosses. bosses here bosses in that. unsilenced bosses and subtle moral bosses and justice bosses. communism is not anarchism. you dont have a capitalistic burgoise individual owner of a factory, you have a chosen boss who say what you have to do.
my point: communism dont solve the boss problem. the natural state of human being is probably the explotation of everything the can explote.

>>13507808
>pre/post-capitalism
if you understand the correct definition of capitalism to be for profit private trade, you're effectively arguing against the concept of egoism that fundamentally underpins our way of life as we know it, and there's precisely zero chance you'll eliminate what is essential to the human condition - but no doubt you'll try through one genocide after another, as your ilk has always done

>>13507884
>you're effectively arguing against the concept of egoism that fundamentally underpins our way of life as we know it
Yes precisely
>what is essential to the human condition
I disagree

>>13507914
How exactly have you solved the anti-evolution answer to natural selection?

>>13507937
>solved the anti-evolution answer to natural selection
Can you rephrase this?

>>13507951
Why, so you can have an escape tunnel to worm yourself out of?

How does your anti-egoism hypothesis debunk the process of natural selection that humans engage in, both through skill specialization and mate selection?

>>13507531
>the last 2
you wish

>>13507964
>>Why, so you can have an escape tunnel to worm yourself out of?

>How does your anti-egoism hypothesis debunk the process of natural selection that humans engage in, both through skill specialization and mate selection?

I say that humans create their own conditions that lead to some with certain predispositions, traits, or skills being filtered out and others more likely to live longer and reproduce. I will admit for now that natural selection is absolute and universal fact for all living beings such as human beings, whether they live in capitalism or hunter-gatherer societies.

>>13508020
no u

>>13507574
>basic things like the printing press and ball bearings came to be thousands of years after their "due date"
>must have been the counterrevolution or something

>>13507534

This tweet is neither true nor false. It's a system for calculating price and value.

>>13507544
t. Fedora
>>13507565
>what do you mean you cant assert things without evidence
>>13508020
>THIS GIRL IS CAPITALISING ON THE SAD STATE OF SOCIETY SEE ITS THE DOOMSDAY
way to go on ignoring context to a situation :^)

>>13507777
Intimidated into silence by those quads.

>>13507531
>almost

>>13508373
Some of his criticisms about 19th century capitalism were fair, but they're not much use outside of historical interest.

>>13507531
When you have an anthropology as retarded as
>society is a series of labor relations
you're bound to get a few things wrong.

>>13508058
>some
try 95% of the population outside of seething incels that have to grapple with the fact they spent their entire life invested in a dead end

>>13507558
>empirically unproven

>>13508186
>indoctrinated college student has epiphany at first paying job when she realizes customers are willing to pay the price they do based on needs and wants

>>13508398
>19th century
>install anti-trust laws
>force breakup of monopolies
>resorts to seething about extrinsic value driven economies instead
>I AM NOT WORTHLESS, HAVE YOU EVEN READ MARX OR HEGELS?!?!?

Most people, and especially most self-proclaimed marxists and communists, haven't got a clue what marxism actually means and what communism actually is. if only they read more instead of becoming anxious because of needing to have an opinion...

just to give one example of where the understanding of these things drastically fails:
-for marx, "communism is not a state of affairs to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.”
-people read the claim that communism results from the contradictions of capitalism, and thus are just thinking about the ideal communist society that will "result" from capitalism automatically defeating itself through its contradictions, as if it was an independent subject
-if they understood what "communism" actually meant, the idea of it resulting from the contradictions of capitalism takes on a completely different character.

>>13507600
>Marxism is a science

>>13507600
It's more like a scammy German "good wish future teller" service.

>>13508678
Educate yourself, luddite.

Communism is 100% compatible with agriculture, and is therefore entirely within the purview of modifying our behaviours for the greater good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

>>13508687
>Educate yourself, luddite.

Oh, the irony.

>>13507600

>Marxism is a science

There’s no such thing as science, the scientific method isn’t real, read Fereyabend.

being a communist in low tech capitalism made sense. the standard of living back then called for it. if i was an illiterate factory worker or farmer then fuck yeah beard man makes sense, it literally means i need to not be a stupid lever puller. in high tech capitalism, it is admitting you would rather have an archaic caricature of what humans and our updated tools are capable of. but in a way it makes sense, self proclaimed stupid button pushers needing a superior enitity to shout at but end up shouting at each other. if youre reading marx instead of hegel in the current year, on the internet, on your pc, your browser, wired to your fucking house into isps and powered by companies who probably literally killed commies in the past then i dont know what the fuck. theres a lot of other media that you can larp other than politics, it just drives those who have the disposition and brain for 'real politics' away and further from realizing your love peace cupcake dreamland. politicizing hegel was the error in the first place

>>13508740
>being a communist in low tech capitalism made sense
no, it made sense in the feudal caste system that the communist manifesto was entirely based off, which by the time it was published was already an odyssey of the past

>>13507531

>Marx was wrong about ___

This is seriously barking up the wrong tree, there’s no actual content to Marx’s ”ouvre” in the first place, it’s a mental virus meant to undo the works of superior races (used to deadly effect against german, japanese, russian, chinese, etc. culture).

>>13508799
You shouldn't use the term virus, because a virus is not alive.

Marxists are better termed as social parasites, which demands the extraction of control of resources due to their genetic predisposition towards it, and/or as a result of abusive childhoods

You could also describe them as human predators

>>13508740
What do you mean? High-tech capitalism is way scarier than low-tech capitalism. We literally have large-scale wars for money interests, the planet is dying for money interests, lobbying and big money in politics is a huge issue, we have the illusion of democracy but in reality everything we think and do is shaped by money interests, Apple workers in China are paid 3 cents an hour and they have suicide nets to stop them from killing themselves, farming and countryside living used to be the purest way of life but now it has been totally corporatised and robbed of its beauty, art has been commercialised, wages have stagnated while productivity has skyrocketed, the workers are still forced to hand over the fruits of their labour to oligarchs at the top, and Jeff Bezos, despite being forced to raise the minimum wage of Amazon workers to 15$ due to political pressure by Bernie Sanders, still makes in 11.5 seconds what his lowest paid workers make in a year.

>>13508816

>The planet is dying

*rolls eyes*

>>13508687
Good ironic post, i Have a renewed faith in This board's sense of humor.

>>13508823
Roll your eyes all you want. It's a fact.

>>13508816
You're just worshiping the past an an ideal state. Agricultural workers throughout history have suffered enormously, and when the doors opened for higher wages in the industrial fields, they leaped at the opportunity.

Advancing a civilisation is a lot of hard work; a lot of things need to built from nothing

Regarding "low wages" in these countries, this is an oversimplified argument. Often western companies pay higher wages than local industries, and have a better culture; their governments ban unions; giving them high wages would just create a dependency.

If you just started giving these people the same rates as in the west, all you would do is increase prices in their regions, and essentially create a welfare system. None of this would actually develop their counties or make things cheaper

>>13508828

Lmfao

>>13508846
Not him, but why dont you believe in the fact that "the planet is dying" whats your argument? why do you hold these beliefs?

>>13507851
Marx knew about desire and scarcity. Scarcity is another way of saying that something is harder to get, or takes longer to produce. Desire is represented in several of his ideas for example good fetishizing. He also discusses supply and demand or Smith a few times.

>>13508855

Climate change isn’t real.

>>13508855
Having an asteroid impact makes the planet die, a couple hundred years of pollution is not death

>>13508858
Jews aren´t real.

>>13508877

Working on it.

>why yes petty partisan politics and economics are the only lens through which I interpret literally everything, how could you tell?

>>13508843
>agriculture argument
Yeah I'm sure the farmers were happy to be pushed off their land and see it subsumed by soulless corporations who don't love the land nor feel any connection to it. Read Grapes of Wrath.
>china argument
Are you joking? The reason Apple and these other megacorps don't pay high wages in china is because they want to make MONEY. It's got nothing at all to do with inflation or caring about Chinese workers. The whole reason they're over there is so they can get cheap labour. As soon as government lets up on regulation in the west these corporations will do the exact same thing to us. And saying "well at least it's better than before" is fucking weasle argument. Just because it's better than before doesn't mean it's as good as it could be or as good as it should be.

>>13508884
Farmers were all happy to gather and develop industailisied methods of agriculture to reduce the amount of human labour involved.

Farm work is hard, disease ridden, unprofitable and for most of human history has been for subsistence agriculture.

Most people even today flee rural jobs the first chance they get

I also never said that they go over there for cheap labour, why else would they? It's also a byproduct of laws and regulations pushing out business here.

I'm just sick of your poor boo hoo soppy liberal mentality, as if things are as simple as "give the brown people more money".

Most companies don't even want to work in china, because they are known scammers who will always undercut you

>>13508911
That they don't*

>>13508911
Literally nothing bad would happen if Apple raised their wages in china. Nobody is advocating to "give" people money you cretin. We're talking about people who are paid 3 CENTS an hour who work till they want to kill themselves but aren't allowed because Apple installs suicide nets in their fucking factories.

>US threads about Marxism
embarrassing. this board should only be open in europoor hours

>>13508928
You're just using hyperbolic arguments

Most of the workers for Apple in China don't stay long term. They live on a worksite and will do short to medium term stints, and most of them are younger. It's just a relatively easier and quicker way to earn a couple hundred dollars a month

https://youtu.be/-kM58QeNd6E

If you pay people high wages, simply because you are a western company you will cause:

>complicit staff
>the reduction of local industry as workers switch to western companies
>increasing local prices
>a lack of incentive to get a different job (just stick with higher paying cushy western job)

You're just being a hysterical little baby. If conditions were so bad there, then people wouldn't work there

People also don't kill themselves because Apple didn't give them the enough money. If you look on Wikipedia, the age of death is all young. What were their home lifes like? Were their parents abusive?

>>13507620
>>13507558
What about the IMF, then?
Source:
>Global Financial Stability Report: Vulnerabilities in a Maturing Credit Cycle, 2019

>>13507851
The value is not directly proportional to the amount of time per se. It is proportional to the amount of time, enhanced by the gain of productivity made by the machines of the different industries. Those machines mostly cost a lot and are very productive because they themselves were made with a lot of human work.

>>13508992
If you think it's acceptable to pay someone 500$ a month for full-time work you are insane. No video is going to justify that. Also Apple is just a random example I picked. There are countless western companies in China that pay even less than Apple does. 36% of the population there work for 2$ a day.

>the reduction of local industry as workers switch to western companies
Good. Maybe they'll have to raise their wages too.
>increasing local prices
Good. Companies will have to raise wages. Class consciousness will strengthen.
>a lack of incentive to get a different job (just stick with higher paying cushy western job)
Until other companies raise wages too.

>>13507540
No we have actual opiates for that

>>13507531
Is Ted Kaczynski the next Karl Marx?

>>13508994
>>>13508994
As companies grow, profit margins decrease substantially.

How do you not understand this?

:3

>>13509049
The cost of living in these countries is a lot lower than in the West, so a wage that would make someone homeless here, provides the ability to rent there. Like I said too, these people are mostly young, who are simply doing a crap job to gain money and skills, likely before, after and during studies.

>Good. Maybe they'll have to raise their wages too.

No you wouldn't, you'd put them out of business. You'd be destroying market competition because poorer, local businesses wouldn't be able to compete; they'd never be able to match the wages of first world employers, and would either have to fire staff, and/or close down.

A similar situation occurs in Africa, where EU subsidized agricultural products and food aid undercuts local industries, so agricultural development in Africa struggles.

What would also happen is that because your higher wages has shut down local companies, you'd then have a monopoly, because you'd have no local competition. By doing that, you'd give these people no leverage with foreign employers.


Your view of the world is extremely simplistic and naive. You don't just simply improve things by increasing wages; everything you do has an impact and changes the flow of wealth elsewhere.

People respond to incentives, and when you have a job, life, work ethic that is paying higher than it's economic value, then people get lazy and complicit.

These jobs suck, and will always suck. They are low skilled, low paid and are dead end. Magically thinking these jobs should pay for a house, three kids and a car is testimony to your low IQ

there is a website bet suited to your brain power, maybe you should fuck off to there

>>13509106
So why is it possible to pay Western wages in the west but is impossible to pay them in China? Are Chinese people just mentally deficient?
>you're reddit if you don't support sweatshops and globalist capitalism
cool

>>13509114
You just keep repeating yourself again and again like there is some magical solution to everything

People want cheap iPhones, the only way to provide cheap iPhones is by reducing production costs. To reduce production costs, you have to export your production to a nation with lower operating costs.

If you didn't do this, then the price of an iPhone would be four times the price, and nobody would buy them. Moreover, you'd just get undercut by another company that will export production

If you want to increase working conditions, then wealth and infrastructure needs to be developed, alongside a less crushing regime by the Chinese government which crushes unions.

Nothing pops up for free, and if you decided to just increase wages in China, you'd basically just be giving welfare

>>13509143
Also, maybe we should have more responsibility as consumers and employers to increase living conditions for exported labour, but the solution isn't to give Zhang ten times his wage "just because"

Chinese people will happily kill kids with fake baby formula, and you are whinging about their poverty

>>13509143
or, you know, instead of making 45 billion a year in profit they can make 20 billion instead :3. they'll still be billionaires, they'll still have enough money to buy an island and do nothing for the rest of their life, only workers won't have to live in factory towns and work paycheck to paycheck

>>13509177
People are millionaires and billionaires in these companies because their net value to these companies is worth that; someone who earns a billion dollars is bringing the company more than that

China has for decades made money undercutting western labour via the Chinese government printing money, to develop manufacturing infrastructure, and you want to give them more money

Zhang doesn't give a fuck about you, and he will happily buy up western property to price you out

>>13509196
>People are millionaires and billionaires in these companies because their net value to these companies is worth that; someone who earns a billion dollars is bringing the company more than that
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
That's a good one buddy. The CEOs and shareholders of these companies bring more value to the company than the workforce who actually engineers the product, manufactures it, manages the company, and sells the product to consumers.

ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED? Shareholders do nothing but own shares in the company. The oligarchs at the top bring NO VALUE at all to Apple. Think of it this way: if we got rid of all the owners, the company would be intact; however if we got rid of all the workers there would be no Apple products.

>>13509163
So you're just saying that chinks are inferior so they should work for 2$ an hour and, in a lot of cases, 2$ a day.
Well what about Americans then? In America there's a class called the "working poor" - people who work full time but still fall below the poverty line. White Americans. What's your justification for that?

>>13507613
>Yeah marxism has had comparable applications to the theories of Newton or von Neumann.
It has. In sociology, histography, anthropology, and political science, historical materialism is often employed to explain phenomena. Despite some flaws, it's generally considered the closest "grand theory of history" to being true.

>>13507622
this

>>13508637
If you would actually study the big anti-trust cases and company histories you might see just how bad they. They ultimately punished companies for providing a superior product at a cheaper cost than its competitors. In many cases like with Standard Oil, there wasn't anything close to a monopoly and many companies didn't even have a dominate market share when they were prosecuted. There is never a good reason to prosecute a natural monopoly, and by natural monopoly I mean a company that dominates through its own interactions with the market and not with the support of the government because prosecuting them only hurts the consumers by forcing them to pay higher costs for inferior products.

>>13507531
>>Marx's doomsday predictions about capitalism are wrong
Nah, just you wait.

>>13507531
owned

>>13509083
no. he will rightly be forgotten once he dies

>>13509196
>People are millionaires and billionaires in these companies because their net value to these companies is worth that; someone who earns a billion dollars is bringing the company more than that
What the actual fuck? Dividends are specifically paid out because you own a piece of paper (or actually not even that today, just bits), not because you do something at the business.
Hell, the stock-owner doesn't even need to know WHAT he owns. Even relatively small holders tend to have outsourced that responsibility, along with selling and buying them to some holding-firm or broker, earning with the trading even more non-contributing income by circulating useless (non-)paper.

>>13509143
China is Capitalism dream. High productivity due to the machines, but still low wages to to the formidable extra workers provided by the country.
In third world countries, historically, people were actually less exploited (for their work) than in rich countries, because the rate of surplus value was lower in those poor countries, than it was in rich countries, due to mechanization (increase in productivity).
Today, China is Capitalism dream, because the productivity is high due to high tech mechanization, but the cost of human labor is still very cheap for the Capitalism. Hence, maximum profit.

>>13507531

>>13509346

>>13509293
Oy vey

>>13509362
not only are you taking evola seriously, but you're taking him seriously over marx. double the embarrasement

>>13508814
Viruses are alive, there are two branches of life I forget what they’re called but ones bacteria and animals and ones viruses

>>13509177
Not me btw.

Just so everyone understands. I don’t even appreciate the argument. It’s not really an argument. Since when did people ‘fighting how things are’ become a reasonable argument? Say something constructive or logical please.

>>13509425
it's a topic of debate

By the way, has anyone else noticed while people are working, the amount of Marxist threads and people espousing Marxist ideology decreases?

I wonder if the mass amount of unemployed losers espouse Marxist ideology because they can’t get a job or friends?

Just something to think about :3. Yes, THIS is me

>>13509446
imagine thinking this

>>13509446
Increases,rather. Sorry

>>13509446
Nope. Most NEET don't read Marx. They just play videogames all day.
I you read Marx or Hegel, you might as well work, because it's harder than many jobs.

Labor theory of value definitely is true, as is class conflict being an engine for change in society.

>>13509469
Marx is not hard. It’s not difficult to understand his biased view of economics.

You Marxists sometimes make me wonder if it’s really hard or not, but a quick perusal of Capital will show you its not.

>>13509018
How do you transform the organic composition of labor into competitive market prices?

>>13509446
I am posting before my boss gets here.

>>13509670
Your boss hates you

:3

>>13509808
>Your boss hates you
I dont take it personally. Its just business.

>>13507592
classic

>>13509379
>Ad hominem

>>13509840
No it isn’t. You didn’t know you could have a good relationship with your boss?

What the fuck?

:3

>>13509857
Yeah bro I almost went with questioning his readership of Marx like i usually do but I decided to tell him off for not understanding.

I constantly recycle the same arguments over and over and am retarded.

But yeah man, shit is a classic move. Love it, it’s the tops.

>>13509526
the idea is to not have competitive market prices in the first place. Exchange value is meant to be abolished.

>>13509526
Is it the market which transforms raw steel into a car?

>>13509143
>Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.

Even bigbrained Aristotle realized politics was all about class conflict

>>13509920
Great quote. Smith was a brilliant thinker. Not a Marxist, obviously, but a brilliant thinker. For too long had those master manufacturers been silent towards their own gain. :3

>>13507540
CRAAAAAWLING IN MY SKIN

>>13509446
>imagining everyone lives in the same time-zone as you

>>13510057
*Everyone of importance

>>13509920
>Landlord's right has its origin in robbery. The landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent for even the natural produce of the earth.

>Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.
C-comrade Smith?

>>13509486
Actually understanding what Marx was getting at is hard as it requires, for starters, an adequate understanding of Hegel and Marx's standpoint in relation to Hegelianism.

Otherwise you end up being a dumb idiot who thinks he gave "views on economics", which shows beyond any possible doubt that you do not understand marx.

>>13507540
No, he was wrong about that. Materialism is the opiate of the masses. Religion and philosophy is the opiate of the intellectual elites.

>>13510158
underrated post

>>13507600
>Marxism is a science.
kek, this nigga has never read marx. Socialism and Marxism are a moral framework pretending to be economics. Same with libertarianism.

>>13510224
>pretending to be economics

>>13510229
yes, that is what I said.

>>13509218
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH That's a good one buddy. ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED? Shareholders do nothing but own shares in the company. The oligarchs at the top bring NO VALUE at all to Apple. Think of it this way: if we got rid of all the owners, the company would be intact; however if we got rid of all the workers there would be no Apple products.
Not him, but I think you have a very limited understanding of how human relationships work. The reason why you put someone in a position of extreme power isn't because they are ultra-productive machines, but because of political reasons. Humans function on a trust basis.

Feudal lords would give away land and titles to others based on loyalty and promises.
These capitalist oligarchs are there because they have the contacts and the trust of other people in the business they are in. Just like high soviet officials were there because they had a positions of trust within the party leadership, and were essentially put in a place where they would lord over others and often lived an oligarch tier lifestyle compared to the plebs in soviet society. These people are granted these positions of great power and material benefits not just because they are hyper-productive beurocrats or technicians, but because the price of trust is extremely high in a ny human hierarchy.

You're not criticizing capitalism, you're criticizing how humans have always operated throughout history.

>>13510244
Not him, but what's your solution?

>>13510244
based and humannaturepilled

>>13507531
>the mode of production we happen to live in, which has only been present for literally less than 0.1% of human history, just happens to be the end of history
Whoa... so t-this... is the power of liberalism...

>>13510131
Also classic retort man. Absolutely fucking classic bro

>>13510256
Not him, but why?

Why do people need to come up with a solution? Are things really so bad we cannot figure out what’s wrong collectively? :3

>>13510256
>solution
lmfao there's no solution to human nature. This is anarchists exist, they find civilization oppressive and incompatible with their utopian ideals and seek to destroy it or use it as a tool to socially engeneer people into being better liberals or socialists or whatever.

Or ultimately, you could always be the braver sort of anarchist and remove yourself from civilization to make a commie/anarchist commune, where human trust isn't an issue since there are few people and things can be organized in a more egalitarian familial or purely collective, clan or tribe-like manner.

Mass democracy is the biggest lie modernism came up with. It's impossible to direct the state in a way that isn't highly hierarchical, therefore all forms of government will be oligarchies. The closest thing you'll ever get to democracy is in very small communities, but those will always get eaten by states.

>>13510244
The marxist critique would target precisely that history, and see human behavior as conditioned by the historical context it finds itself in- it's not particularly mind-blowing that this sort of absolute separation of functions such that we can talk of "people being put here or there" and becoming ossified into these roles exists in class societies. It's not even unique to "leeches", it happens all across the labor geography of society

>>13510158
Based.

>>13510244
The only difference between a socialist company and a capitalist company is how the profit is distributed. Do we a) give it to the oligarchs or b) give it to the workers who engineered the product, made the product, managed the company, and sold the product.
There can still be hierarchy. There can still be a boss and a managing team and you can still get fired for doing something wrong. The only thing that will change is who gets the money.

>>13510354
>exists in class societies
But that's where Marx's ideas are silly. There's no such thing as "classless societies". At best, he could refer to primitive societies where you had a more egalitarian collective. But in large societies, where humans have relations of trade with other humans that they have never met before, or even with people that they have never met in person, trust becomes an extremely valuable commodity. This is why hierarchies become more strict as societies grow. And the least trust the higher echelon of the state hierarchy has on the people it's lording over, the stricter it gets.

>>13510397
>Marx wanted no hierarchies
My god. Be honest with me, how many of you actually read Marx? How many of you even read anything besides /lit/ posts?

>>13510397
You're tacitly assuming that relations of trade are eternal, immutable necessities of human society whereas they are precisely historically determined by social relationships to production of the agents trading. The earliest states, which already took taxes in the form of produce, did not have internal trade in any significant way different from gift exchange. Trade arises in relations between states (e.g. the bronze age copper-tin network) and has no trans-historical meaning outside of the historical forms it takes.

The same sort of argument goes for your notions of truth, hierarchy, commodity etc. where even your understanding of these things is historically conditioned

>>13510395
>>13510404
>Do we a) give it to the oligarchs or b) give it to the workers who engineered the product, made the product, managed the company, and sold the product.
No, you see, this is precisely what I argued against. Yes, in theory this is how it works. In practice, the group or party in charge of the socialist state can't trust the workers to do exactly what they want them to, so they need some sort of officer there to negotiate or rule over the workers. Unless the community behind the company is an independent state itself, it will answer to a corporate hierarchy that will decide who really gets the profits.
You see, this is the problem. A beurocratic hierarchy in any state functions as a class. You can call the management class whatever you want, it's still a class.

>>13510423
If only Marx had stated what he considered the proletariat..... if only.....

>>13510423
>A beurocratic hierarchy in any state functions as a class
Even leaving aside the debate as to whether that's technically true (it could be, it could not, I'm not saying it definitely isn't), no marxist would be bothered by this if it were the case. Marxists, communists are not apologists for the stalinist states.

>>13510414
A 'state' that doesn't need taxes to sustain itself, and where most members of it are seemingly self-sufficient is barely a state, is it? Yes, trade arised historically in relations between states, but if we're talking about anything larger than a small city-state with labor specializations and corporate organizations, trade is essential. At this point you need a market and a management class.

>>13510423
That's a good thing. It will serve as an incentive for people to work up towards management positions and serve as a high ranking member of society. This "class" will have the workers interests at heart since they themselves will be workers, the owner class today only has themselves at heart.

>>13510443
>communists are not apologists for the stalinist states.
>Not real socialism
It was real and I have nothing to be ashamed about.

Not even a tankie.

PragerU is also redpilled.

>>13510433
barons and corporate executives can call themselves proletariat union leaders. Doesn't change their function.

>>13508186
I'm not saying she is right, but she's not totally wrong either. The key would be finding a medium to truly express yourself/your "brand" of personal creativity. Yes, that does have societal value, if you can discover your best medium and explore it.

>>13510451
I talked about states that took taxes though. And you're just reasserting your original claim, not giving any new argument. You say trade is essential, in reality it is just a historically contingent form that arises out of the organization of production. So it could be worded as it being essential for those specific historical circumstances, but not essential in itself.

>>13510459
The point is not whether "it was real socialism" (once again, read marx: >>13508641 ) but that the marxist (scientific) understanding of these states and the political implications drawn from them with regards to communism today can never be apologia. Anything of the sort is simply reactionary.

>>13510455
>That's a good thing. It will serve as an incentive for people to work up towards management positions and serve as a high ranking member of society. This "class" will have the workers interests at heart since they themselves will be workers, the owner class today only has themselves at heart.
Yeah, and they'll always keep themselves at heart. You can change their names and pretend that some sort of meritocracy exists though if that makes you feel better. The chinese monarchies were great at doing this.

>>13508816
typical arguments like this are autogenerated. when it was said that the workers are alienated from their labor, today you should say alienated from their being. you could pull the same argument of religion, communism is itself made a religion as a mobilizer of capitalist agendas. marxists in hightech capital are made to be alienated to be pliable. a capitalist sees the notions being sold and doesnt bother. now if you read that through hegel you will see how the ontological poison was made a standard hook bait. im not saying its bad to have empathy, but it sure is not healthy being fed a simulacra of poverty, which you are itself alienated from the people you pretend to care about. for all the frustration exists a similar amount of exploitation by the same people who rally on ideological brands as nu-capitalist. youre fooling yourself if you think those outsourced companies dont have a higher standard than the local businesses in the countries they settle in. those workers have a higher standard of living than any illiterate factory or farmer worker in the past and even the poor of today. try travelling to a 3rd world country with one of these companies in the area.

>>13510471
> with regards to communism today can never be apologia. Anything of the sort is simply reactionary.
And what's that supposed to mean? I'm not a Stalinoid but when people throw hot takes about socialist states, I'm going to react to that.

>>13510471
>I talked about states that took taxes though.
Can you give me an example of a state that doesn't? I think the early forms of state you're using as an example of what is "possible" isn't much different than the collective tribal organizations I've referred to. They are barely states in our modern understanding of what a state is: a nation with a beurocracy that is surrounded by other nation-states with their own beurocracy and interests.

You're talking about very simple, low density agrarian societies that organized around temples or palaces that demanded tribute from time to time. Is that a realistic model for a modern state to compare itself to?

>>13510501
I'm not comparing modern states to these, they were an illustration of the historically contingent nature of trade.

Your notion of the modern state is, likewise, just as historically contingent as these organizations. Which is to say that yes, under the circumstances of their inception, the things you mention were absolutely crucial and necessary. But this is not grounds for the claim that these things are necessary for any form of complex organization of labor whatsoever. The reason you don't see this is that you equate this with the organization of labor that currently exists (ie the modern nation-state and the globalized network) as the sole, and moreover the proper, way for it to exist. Communism entails precisely the critique of this kind of thinking.

>>13510494
It means that for the world of today, ie 2019, communists that are interested in communism today must conceptualize the stalinist states in this way. Apologizing for them, proselytizing for this stalinist notion of "socialism" (as if our task was going around convincing people of the viability of states), is necessarily reactionary: it takes its principles from past history and wishes to return to these, for it takes this past to be the solution to what it perceives as the problem. This is almost by definition reactionary, and why it's so common to see this sort of LARPing in self-proclaimed middle-class communists that don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

>>13510544
based

>>13510335
Sure. Don't read Marx. Also don't read Hegel.
Mein Kampf is more than enough to understand the world. :s
t. former alt-right who understood that both the right and the left are alienated political economy.

>>13510544
>is necessarily reactionary: it takes its principles from past history and wishes to return to these, for it takes this past to be the solution to what it perceives as the problem.
That's fine then. Pretty much the same position as mine although I defend the USSR.

>>13510544
>But this is not grounds for the claim that these things are necessary for any form of complex organization of labor whatsoever
They absolutely are in a high enough scale. For starters, you'll need market prices to organize it. One of the major mistakes of socialist states post SU was attempting to run an economy without it. In fact, their tendency was to use the market prices of neighboring capitalist countries to have an idea of how to organize their production. I'm not talking about an organized network or a global market here, I'm talking about organizing, say, a hundread thousand people to build something like a road or a building, of feeding an entire city, where thousands of people are involved in the transportation of goods and production of materials.

You also have the problem of trust in a society that has millions of people. A society like this has to deal with the very complex problem of having to trade with strangers. As I said, trust becomes an extremely expensive commodity in these circumstances. Corruption an inevitability.

You want the workers to own what they are producing, but you need to police them to know they aren't ripping each other off or that things are getting done in time. At this point you're just a moralist, putting trustees in key positions and hoping they'll do ok. What's even the difference between you and an oligarch managing a giant corporation but pretending that the workers are in charge.

>>13510451
Trade is the bridge between primitive communism and superior communism.

>>13510584
>.t. former alt-right
No one who says "former alt-right" even knows what that was or how it was percieved in the boards.

It's like saying you're a former neomarxist but was enlightened by the teachings of Peterson.

>>13510631
None of what you say is that bad, if we kept ourselves to thinking about statist tendencies against the market within capitalism. But what I am concerned here is the critique of capitalism itself, the critique of markets, prices, the idea that objects are commodities. The very idea that we need be dealing with strangers that therefore necessitates trust as a regulator is subject to critique. Huge swaths of people in nation states have an implicit level of "trust" for their fellow compatriots than the same amount of people in neighboring tribes a thousand years ago, which goes to show just how dependent on material, social circumstances all of these things are. To take anything, any one thing or concept as absolute or trans-historical is already to fall prey to fetishization.

>>13507540
no, taking personal responsibility for yourself, and caring for your community is not a way to numb yourself

>>13510670
>but was enlightened by the teachings of Peterson.
>ENLIGHTENED by PETERSON.

Seriously?

>>13510691
Are you retarded?

>>13509196
Sounds like the correct answer is to kill the Chinese
t. Leftist

>>13507558
Based

>>13510671
> the critique of markets, prices, the idea that objects are commodities.
You can criticize markets all you want, but they are tools that have materialized in all societies that grew large enough where trading with strangers became a thing. Trading with strangers is precisely where markets and class societies have come from. This has always been the price of civilization. In fact, trust is what allows things such as market capitalism and social welfare to exist. If people didn't follow any rules, these things wouldn't exist. The fact that these exist is a miracle in itself. I don't take these things as absolute, but denying their existence is naive and unrealistic. To me, being angry at humans because their relationships within the state are what they are, in all historical examples, is like being angry at a nest building birds for not coming together and building appartment projects instead.

You're not critiquing capitalism, you're critiquing civilization itself. Your chief concern seems to be the want to expand this level of trust to the point where people will behave as if everyone was their mother and lived with them, and the incentives to cheat or steal would be almost null. We wouldn't need management or a government. You're romanticizing a human creation, the noble savage. A perfect incorruptible collective being.

My problem with this is that it leads many lefties to fetishize public education. This obsession comes about because many of you seem to want to engineering human relations to find a way to solve this problem, while to me a lot of this is just wasted resources and energy that could be applied somewhere else. But we have to create an entire class of academic socioligists instead.

>>13507558
which of the predictions generated by the LTV have been empirically falsified?

>>13507534
the LTV isn't a system for calculating price.

>>13507609
>>13508678
>>13508681
>>13508737
which criteria of a scientific theory does the LTV fail to meet?

>>13507540
Absolutely
There's plenty of research showing a strong correlation between shitty standards of living and religiosity. The more miserable societies are, the more likely their citizens are to adopt religion.

>>13507851
>the fact that he refused to account for personal desire and scarcity, ergo supply and demand, already shows his ideological bent
Marx recognizes supply and demand will determine market price.

>>13507531
Okay, commies are easy targets and all, but how can a sane person defend capitalism in 2019?
Serious question, reply to this post you cowards

>>13509905
Lel good luck.
>>13509906
There are a series of interrelated markets that contribute to the additive value of a car through roundaboutness, so yes. You did not answer my question, which directly pertains to Marx's theory.

>>13509526
you think the LTV is supposed to prescribe market prices to commodities?

Since when did the mods become bitchboy babies? Why are my posts deleted?


Fucking retarded faggots, suck my cock :333

>>13510839
There is no "defense" or ethical system that is involved in discarding Marx, there is instead correct and incorrect economic analysis.

>>13510863
Well, it certainly doesn't provide a mechanism which can accurately describe market prices, which is a big problem for a theory of economic value that claims there are stable exchange values.

>>13510872
>Well, it certainly doesn't provide a mechanism which can accurately describe market prices
yeah because it's not a theory of market prices.
>>13510869
you're saying the LTV cannot be falsified?

>>13510872
*Exchange value which are supposed to fluctuate around some "intrinsic" factor.

>>13510839
it doesnt need or care about being 'defended'. also stop anthrophomorphizing it and maybe you will stop acting like its some person you can throw in a jail and peace will prevail

>>13510880
Tell me, what is an "exchange value," then? I always see Marxists try to provide this distinction as though it's some kind of "gotcha." Surely, market prices must arise with relation to some sort of market value, right? Marx seemed to think so in Volume 3, otherwise he wouldn't have devoted time to a (hilariously flawed) system of equations which demonstrates this.
>You're saying that the LTV cannot be falsified?
No, I'm saying that it fails as an instrumental theory of economics.

>>13510883
no, market prices are supposed to fluctuate around exchange value. and value, on the LTV, isn't "intrinsic" (depending on what you mean by that).

>>13510895
>Tell me, what is an "exchange value," then?
exchange value is just a commodity's "value," determine by the average amount of unskilled labor time it takes to reproduce the commodity at a given time and place. it's posited as the center of gravity around which market prices fluctuate due to supply and demand.
>Surely, market prices must arise with relation to some sort of market value, right?
in relation to some sort of *non-market* value, yeah.
>No, I'm saying that it fails as an instrumental theory of economics.
so you're saying it's been empirically falsified? or it's incoherent? or it's ad-hoc?

>>13510896
>market prices are supposed to fluctuate around exchange value
Where did I claim otherwise?
>and value, on the LTV, isn't "intrinsic"
Is identifying labor as a common, determining factor in all exchange values not "intrinsic"? Why bother trying to determine an "organic composition" of labor, then?

>>13510798
Good post. I repeat, exchange value is the bridge between primitive communism and superior communism. You are smart you'll understand what i mean by this.
Have you heard about the Hutterites, Israeli Kibbutz, or revolutionary Catalonia?

>>13510839
No one defends "capitalism" except for neoliberals. It's a meaningless abstraction, at best just a bunch of property laws that have always existed in one way or another. It's only relevant today because people have associated it to the industrial revolution so no one really knows how to deal with these changes.

The defense of capitalism is useful because it creates a narrative both neoliberals and marxists like: the idea that the only meaningful dialectic to be had in our time is the dychotomy of capitalism vs socialism. This is encouraged by both groups because one thinks the system is proved to be superior and therefore eternal and the other thinks it's constantly at its "late stage" and that the only option of 'not capitalism' that will be popular and considered just among the masses is their idea of socialism.

If communists and other neo jacobinists didn't exist some military power would have already culled the bankers and introduced some form of populist monarchy, which was always the standard in human history. But because of this autistic borderline religious cult created around the ideas of the enlightment and the french revolution between liberals and commies they managed to stall the inevitable while preserving a democratic façade aimed at masking their mundane imperial administrations by convincing the masses that they were the true upholders of whatever it is that gave us worker rights, trains, penicillin and smartphones.

>>13510909
>Where did I claim otherwise?
you seem to be saying exchange value = market price.
>Is identifying labor as a common, determining factor in all exchange values not "intrinsic"?
well "intrinsic" would imply that a commodity's value is inherent to its essence and not malleable depending on social factors. the whole point is that value is dependent on how long it takes on average to reproduce the good (with particular technology, at particular times, etc.). this isn't "inherent."

>>13510905
None of what you have said contradicts what I have said, you are just trying to squirm out of answering my questions directly.
>so you're saying it's been empirically falsified? or it's incoherent? or it's ad-hoc?
I'm saying that it has failed to accurately model the economy, and has been outmoded by competing theories, but the latter two issues could be leveled against it as well. Here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

>>13510923
>no one defends capitalism except for X
>proceeds to defend capitalism

So you're a neoliberal?

>>13510905
>>13510935
Also,
>exchange value is just a commodity's "value," determine by the average amount of unskilled labor time it takes to reproduce the commodity at a given time and place. it's posited as the center of gravity around which market prices fluctuate due to supply and demand.
Surely, there is a way in which the "non-market" value that you mentioned (SNLT, I'm guessing) can be used to determine this "center of gravity," and therefore market prices, right?

>>13510935
>None of what you have said contradicts what I have said, you are just trying to squirm out of answering my questions directly.
which question have I not answered directly?
>I'm saying that it has failed to accurately model the economy, and has been outmoded by competing theories
okay if you're saying it's "inaccurate," that would imply it's been empirically falsified. so which predictions generated by the theory have been empirically disconfirmed? if your claim is actually that it's a superfluous theory that's been outmoded by competing theories, you'd have to provide an example of a theory that explains the same phenomena attempted to be explained by the LTV, and explain in virtue of what is it a "better" theory.
>>13510963
>Surely, there is a way in which the "non-market" value that you mentioned (SNLT, I'm guessing) can be used to determine this "center of gravity,"
yeah the whole point is that SNLT determines the magnitude of the center of gravity, if I wasn't clear.
>and therefore market prices
explaining the magnitude of the center of gravity doesn't explain the fluctuations around it. Marx appeals to supply and demand to explain the latter.

>>13510912
>Hutterites, Israeli Kibbutz, or revolutionary Catalonia?
Yeah. With the exception of rev. catalonia, which I find very dubious in its execution and highly idealized but won't discuss because I don't want to upset anarchokiddies, those are descent examples of well made collectives.

Make no mistake, you could make fairly interesting collectives in small, high-trust mostly agrarian societies. You even have a good example of co-ops that somewhat function within our modern system today in Spain in the shape of mondragon. Although I'm a bit skeptical about them, I'm not against these experiments. Maybe one day something like this would work and we'll have a system that's sustainable and where workers have diginty.
>>13510956
No, I'm just not dumb enough to be a communist. I'm not defending capitalism either. In fact, I don't think it exists in the way anti-capitalists seem to portray it. To me being angry at capitalism is like being angry that administrations and the state exists.

>>13510994
Where do you get the fatuous idea that anti-capitalists are anti-capitalists just because they are angry?

You right-wingers have the most pathetic critiques of your adversaries, no joke.

>>13507531
>the socialist revolutions will happen in industrial capitalist societies, with Russia being the least likely to try it
>ONLY THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES TRY IT AND RUSSIA DOES IT FIRST
This immediately discredits him and his historical materialism.

>>13511002
>Where do you get the fatuous idea that anti-capitalists are anti-capitalists just because they are angry?
Was it really the word "anger" that upset you? I could use "disappointed" instead if that makes you happy. But you're right though, the right-wingers are the real snowflakes. Boy, do we get triggered easily.

I'm convinced: I'm not an alt-right drumpfttard anymore, from now on I'm a based left-winger. I'll go make a twitter and youtube channel and start blogging about it, too.

>>13510983
>okay if you're saying it's "inaccurate," that would imply it's been empirically falsified.
Only the conclusions drawn by Marxism can be empirically falsified (falling rate of profit, class conflict, revolution, not having a usable price mechanism). Since the bulk of the theory is deduced from dialectical mumbo-jumbo (and can therefore only be genrously identifiedas an instrumental theory), we can only determine if its core mechanics are "innacurate" through comparison to the mechanisms provided by other economic theories (Austrian, Neoclassical, Neo-Ricardian, etc.) and whether these theories have produced better predictions. Of course, the idenification of self-contradiction or ad-hoc construction are alternatives.
>explaining the magnitude of the center of gravity doesn't explain the fluctuations around it.
But can you even determine that center of gravity? A failure to explain these "fluctuations" belies an inability to consistently establish SNLT as something which can be transformed from a common value manifested in "living/total labor time" to the prices in question.

>>13511043
>Only the conclusions drawn by Marxism can be empirically falsified
the LTV generates about 11 empirically testable predictions (falling rate of profit during long-wave periods of expansion is one; class conflict/revolution aren't one these predictions; I don't know what you mean by "not having a usable price mechanism). I'll ask again, do you have data that shows any of these predictions to be empirically disconfirmed?
>Of course, the idenification of self-contradiction or ad-hoc construction are alternatives.
okay, well you haven't established how the LTV is self-contradictory or ad-hoc.
>But can you even determine that center of gravity?
if the LTV is correct, it seems that we can, yeah.
>A failure to explain these "fluctuations" belies an inability to consistently establish SNLT as something which can be transformed from a common value manifested in "living/total labor time" to the prices in question.
why? the theory doesn't purport to explain market prices. you're saying a theory cannot consistently explain equilibrium prices without also explaining market price fluctuations?

>>13511027
Nah, the word anger didn't upset me, it was the pathetic smooth brain defense of a intrinsically exploitative system that did.

You could've been the guy who said "Being angry at the feudal lord is like being angry at god and the church!" 400 years ago.

>>13511082
>I'll ask again, do you have data that shows any of these predictions to be empirically disconfirmed?
>okay, well you haven't established how the LTV is self-contradictory or ad-hoc.
As much as you want this to be the argument that we're having, it's not. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a theory being unfalsifiable because it's deductive orsublative or whatever if it makes correct predictions. I don't think you understand instrumentalism.
>why? the theory doesn't purport to explain market prices. you're saying a theory cannot consistently explain equilibrium prices without also explaining market price fluctuations?
According to Marx, we have an observable SNLT which determines an exchange value, observable market prices, and the contention that market prices fluctuate around an exchange value. If this is indeed the case, then we should be able to establish a system of equations that contemporally transforms SNLT into competitive market prices by accounting for distortionary market forces, RIGHT?

>>13511082
>>13511188
Also,
>you're saying a theory cannot consistently explain equilibrium prices
No, you said that, but thank you for slipping that in for me.

>>13511111
Or you could have been the guy who said "being angry at the communist party is like being a counterrevolutionary traitor" when the party sends someone from your family to toil endlessly in jail for some reason.

State does bad thing so whaever laws it has must be part of a intrinsically exploitative system. That's because the state isn't a bunch of men ordering other men around, it's just laws on paper. Yes.

>>13511188
>As much as you want this to be the argument that we're having, it's not. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a theory being unfalsifiable because it's deductive orsublative or whatever if it makes correct predictions. I don't think you understand instrumentalism.
okay, maybe I'm confused here. you've claimed that the LTV is a) "inaccurate" (which I take to mean empirically disconfirmed), b) unfalsifiable (despite the fact that it generates testable predictions), c) ad-hoc (despite the fact that these predictions are novel, and d) self-contradictory. I'm just trying to get a justification for any of these claims.
>According to Marx, we have an observable SNLT
SNLT isn't observable
>If this is indeed the case, then we should be able to establish a system of equations that contemporally transforms SNLT into competitive market prices by accounting for distortionary market forces, RIGHT?
no, and I really don't understand why you think this needs to be the case. distortionary market forces will affect market prices, which are distinct from values, on the LTV.
>>13511208
>No, you said that, but thank you for slipping that in for me.
what? what I'm saying is that the LTV does consistently explain equilibrium prices.

I didn't know self-actualization was something as easily quantifiable as the value in an economy lmao


caca economy

>>13511248
>you've claimed that the LTV is a) "inaccurate" (which I take to mean empirically disconfirmed), b) unfalsifiable (despite the fact that it generates testable predictions), c) ad-hoc (despite the fact that these predictions are novel, and d) self-contradictory
I only claimed that it fails as an instrumental theory and mentioned other ways that someone COULD identify issues with it, perhaps "innacurate" was the wrong word. You're very clearly trying to shift the goalposts.
>SNLT isn't observable
According to Marx, it can be observed after the exchange has occurred. To the economist, it should be observable.
>distortionary market forces will affect market prices, which are distinct from values, on the LTV.
But they supposedly fluctuate around the exchange value, so there should be a system of equations that can account for them by Marx's logic. Unless Marx vacillated on what is actually meant by "socially necessary labor time," but as we know, this is part of a sublative unity, so Marx was of course consistent everywhere.

>>13511315
>I only claimed that it fails as an instrumental theory
it's not an instrumental theory, in virtue of the fact that it attempts to provide an objectively true and falsifiable explanation for some phenomena.
>and mentioned other ways that someone COULD identify issues with it, perhaps "innacurate" was the wrong word.
so you're not claiming it's empirically falsified, unfalsifiable, ad-hoc, or self-contradictory?
>You're very clearly trying to shift the goalposts.
I'm just trying to understand what your claim is.
>According to Marx, it can be observed after the exchange has occurred.
I have no idea how an abstraction of average unskilled labor-time is supposed to be observed. if you could provide a citation for whether Marx says that, I'd be interested.
>But they supposedly fluctuate around the exchange value, so there should be a system of equations that can account for them by Marx's logic
this is what I'm not getting. why would a theory of equilibrium/natural prices need to simultaneously be a theory of market prices? we already have an understanding of what determines market prices; that's not what Marx was trying to explain.
>Unless Marx vacillated on what is actually meant by "socially necessary labor time,"
what do you take SNLT to mean?

>>13508843
Leaped at opportunity my ass. These people were forced into wage labor because they couldn't compete with the technological advances and amount of capital their corporate competitors possessed. Living conditions became worse as what was once the rural population was crammed into the unbreathable quarters of factory towns.

Advancing civilization is hard work, but it is made harder by making material relations predominantly indirect and private. Do you not see how resources are squandered on market research in order to determine what the population needs or wants? Wouldn't it be easier to advance civilization through direct collaboration?

So people should live in abject poverty because it might make their economy greater? I would like to see you subjected to at least a month in those conditions and not comeback crying about exploitation and injustice.

>>13511224
Feudalism is a mode of production.
Bolshevism is not feudalism, but it is also not communism. It's State Capitalism.
Marxists are in favor of the abolition of the State.

So yes, as a former alt-right, i say fuck marxist leninists and their "vanguard party".

>>13511445
>It's State Capitalism
lmfao yes. Because capitalism obviously means "bad stuff" to you, it's a meaningless abstraction.

Tell me, who owned the means of production in bolshevik state, the communist party? So the communist party was practicing capitalism, even when they say they weren't? What part of it involved the ownership of capital? Man, whoever de-radicalized you from being an alt-right nazi capitalist troll russian bot drumpf supporter did a great job.

>>13510459
pragerU is a zionist propaganda outlet. far from redpilled

>>13511472
> So the communist party was practicing capitalism, even when they say they weren't?

Exactly. Even Lenin (fuck him), literrally said in the 1920s that Russia was too archaic for commmunism. Thus a transitional phase of State Capitalism was necessary in order to achieve communism. Lenin died, and the transitional phase never ended. Of course, should he have lived, nothing would have changed.

In Bolshevism, the State was the owner of the Capital.
Try stopping to work as a worker in USSR. They would deport you. If the workers were truly owning the means of production, they could have stopped working, slow down, whatever, nothing should have happened. USSR was clearly a class based society.

>>13507857
>theres always going to be bosses
People really need to see this reality, no matter what economic plan you have, you will always serve someone. The only way out is either suicide or escaping society and living off the land.

>>13511528
>In Bolshevism, the State was the owner of the Capital.
So you can have capitalism in a state where the private means of production is completely owned by the state? By this logic, feudalism was also capitalism. And so was most state organizations before "capitalism". The word becomes a completely empty abstraction. It's just a jargon used to denegrate government organizations you disagree with.

Define capitalism in a way that differentiates it from any other system. Is any system that has money in it and classes considered capitalism?

>>13511472
>Tell me, who owned the means of production in bolshevik state
In 1937, 90.7% of agricultural production in terms of monetary value was done outside of state enterprises. So if you want to say that it wasn't state capitalism then I agree. It was just plain capitalism.

>So the communist party was practicing capitalism, even when they say they weren't?
Yeah, why the fuck would Stalin lie about anything? Such a trustworthy fellow he was!

>>13511552
>By this logic, feudalism was also capitalism.
Feudalism wasn't capitalism because the majority of production was done by private individuals producing directly for their own consumption, and not in exchange for wages.

>>13511552
>Feudalism is where the means of production are completely owned by the state

Hey does anyone know a better place to discuss political science and economics? /lit/ really picks some fucking retarded things to say and some retarded people to talk about (see:Marx) :3

>>13511552
>Define capitalism in a way that differentiates it from any other system. Is any system that has money in it and classes considered capitalism?
not that guy but Marx sees generalized commodity production as the particular feature of capitalism that distinguishes it from other systems.

>>13511552
Easy.
Capitalism is a mode of production. It is based around private property of the means of production. And wage labor. In general the keys components of Capitalism are: a State, exchange value, delegation of power, money.

In Feudalism, the serf work for the Lord because the Lord is supposed to protect him. Not in exchange of a wage. The serf can't leave, and the Lord can't fire the slave.
The Lord draw it's power from the land he owns.

In the slavery mode of production, the slave work for free. He produce for free, or he dies.

In primitive communism, there is no class. There is also no private property of the means of production at all. The hunts are totally shared. There is no delegation of power, and no exchange value.

Bolshevism has: a State, delegation of power, class based society (the supreme soviet), exchange value (that's the worse), and even money (lol communism).

>>13511567
Ok, so you also need wages for it to be capitalism. Now define how socialism differenciates from this.
>>13511578
Can you not see how incredibly vague this is? You also had commodity production under feudalism, or any system that practice mercantilism or commerce. I see a lot of lefties describing alternatives such as "market socialism", where I assume you'd also see commodity production. Is socialism also capitalism unless it's a special kind of socialism that isn't?

>>13511594
> In general the keys components of Capitalism are State, exchange value, delegation of power, money.
This could also discribe the production system of the Roman Empire more or less accurately. Was that capitalism?

>>13511596
>Can you not see how incredibly vague this is? You also had commodity production under feudalism, or any system that practice mercantilism or commerce.
yeah but it wasn't "generalized," which just means the dominant type of production. i.e., an economy wherein the majority of things produced are done so for the primary purpose of exchanging them for money on a market.
>I see a lot of lefties describing alternatives such as "market socialism", where I assume you'd also see commodity production.
yeah Marx wouldn't consider market socialism to be socialism.
>Is socialism also capitalism unless it's a special kind of socialism that isn't?
well socialism is a nebulous term that means a million different things to a million different people. I'm just talking from a Marxist POV.

>>13511594
>The serf can't leave, and the Lord can't fire the slave.
Wait, can't you have capitalism with slavery? Why can't the slave be a commodity? One does not contradict the other.

Let's say I created a state where all the workers are slaves and also my property, and I'm their sole proprietor and make them produce shoes so I can sell them in some foreign market. So because there are not wages involved, this isn't capitalism?

>>13511608
>yeah Marx wouldn't consider market socialism to be socialism.
>well socialism is a nebulous term that means a million different things to a million different people. I'm just talking from a Marxist POV.
Do you see the problem here? The entirety of the left is essentially locked under a marxian monopoly of the term "left", whereas not being a full communist means you're a capitalist and being a capitalist means that you're essentially not a communist. This is retarded.

>>13511378
So, now you're jumping from the conclusions drawn from the LTV being falsifiable, a premise which I have agreed upon, to that of the entire explanation being falsifiable, which is on you to demonstrate. Once again, none of this contradicts my point that Marxian economixlcs, like any other theory either inductive, deductive, or otherwise, can be assessed instrumentally as it comtrasts with other competing theories.
>so you're not claiming it's empirically falsified, unfalsifiable, ad-hoc, or self-contradictory?
I'm not claiming that it's not, either. I know that you have a canned response for each if these that you want to use (much like your response to my question about the transformation problem), and I'm just not interested in discussing David Harvey's latest cause célèbre in economic academia right now.
>I have no idea how an abstraction of average unskilled labor-time is supposed to be observed.
I agree, but to Marx it would probably be as a factor of the organic composition of labor embodied in a commodity as outlined in Volume III, or as the third element to which each exchanged commodity is reducible as outlined in Volume I. Even then, the thing shouldn't have to be directly observable in order to create a consistent system of equations by which it relates to equilibrium prices (as the sum of living labor, dead labor, and surplus value). Have you read chapter 9 of Volume III? FYI we're talking about competitive equilibrium and not the minute fluctuations between individual transactions, so the distinction between "equilibrium" and "market" prices is moot.
>what do you take SNLT to mean?
My understanding was that it was the average labor time embodied in a particular commodity, but it's different depending on who you ask. I don't think Marx was very rigorous with this definition, despite being so important to his theory.

>>13511601
No, because in Rome, most of the production was done by slaves, not wage workers.

>>13511378
So, now you're jumping from the conclusions drawn from the LTV being falsifiable, a premise which I have agreed upon, to that of the entire explanation being falsifiable, which is on you to demonstrate. Once again, none of this contradicts my point that Marxian economics, like any other theory either inductive, deductive, or otherwise, can be assessed instrumentally as it contrasts with other competing theories.
>so you're not claiming it's empirically falsified, unfalsifiable, ad-hoc, or self-contradictory?
I'm not claiming that it's not, either. I know that you have a canned response for each of these that you want to use (much like your response to my question about the transformation problem), and I'm just not interested in discussing David Harvey's latest cause célèbre in economic academia right now.
>I have no idea how an abstraction of average unskilled labor-time is supposed to be observed.
I agree, but to Marx it would probably be as a factor of the organic composition of labor embodied in a commodity as outlined in Volume III, or as the third element to which exchanged commodities are reducible as outlined in Volume I. Even then, the thing shouldn't have to be directly observable in order to create a consistent system of equations by which it relates to equilibrium prices (as the sum of living labor, dead labor, and surplus value). Have you read chapter 9 of Volume III? FYI we're talking about competitive equilibrium and not the minute fluctuations between individual transactions, so the distinction between "equilibrium" and "market" prices is moot.
>what do you take SNLT to mean?
My understanding was that it was the average labor time embodied in a particular commodity, but it's different depending on who you ask. I don't think Marx was very rigorous with this definition, despite being so important to his theory.

>>13511617
This is too fucking stupid to take seriously. So even if I have a market economy with people who own factories and export goods around, because the workers are slaves it wouldn't be considered capitalism. But a system like the Soviet Union where they went through great lenghs to at least make believe that unions are empowered and workers are the owners of production and they elect their representants is capitalism. Can you see how confusing this is to normal people?

>>13511611
>Let's say I created a state where all the workers are slaves and also my property, and I'm their sole proprietor and make them produce shoes so I can sell them in some foreign market. So because there are not wages involved, this isn't capitalism?

The dynamics of production are clearly different in slavery and in Capitalism. Profit, Capital accumulation, that doesn't work the same in slavery and Capitalism.

>whereas not being a full communist means you're a capitalist and being a capitalist means that you're essentially not a communist. This is retarded.

No it's not retarded. Political economy and it's whole spectrum is retarded for radical Marxists.
Whether you are Monarchist, Hitlerians, Libertarians, socialists, nationalist, you are all Capitalist from Marx point of view. You are in favor of : a State, delegation of power, exchange value, money.
Radical marxism is to abolish all of this. Not make it better.

>>13508641
wee oo wee oo here's the leftcom mobile. Next stop: Nowhere, since leftcoms dont amount to anything ahahahaaa

>>13511641
> Profit, Capital accumulation, that doesn't work the same in slavery and Capitalism.
Fucking how?? I'm selling consumer goods to other capitalists who own slaves themselves. People have slaves but also factories and banks and shit. This is a system I'm making up right now. How would you describe it?

>>13511611
>Do you see the problem here? The entirety of the left is essentially locked under a marxian monopoly of the term "left", whereas not being a full communist means you're a capitalist and being a capitalist means that you're essentially not a communist. This is retarded.
I don't know. different people have different ideas of what capitalism and socialism are. I'm just speaking from one framework.

>>13508641
>-for marx, "communism is not a state of affairs to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.”

In other words, we'll make it up as we go along, and any form of planning is idealism. Also this myopic stance wont lead to massive chaos (as it has before in the USSR, which forced it to degenerate back into capitalism), trust me.

>>13510404
>hierarchies persist even when classes do not
Oh, so it'll be like in the Soviet Union, where you dont really have a ruling class, but a proletarian vanguard that has all the characteristics of a ruling class but just a different name. Bakunin might've been wrong on many cases, but he was right to see that Marx' "Classless society" would just recreate everything wrong with capitalism. Which is exactly what happened.

>>13511650
In slavery, everything the slave produce is surplus labor. Thus all the calculus done relative to the rate of profit, surplus value rate, tendency of the profit to fall etc... that doesn't work.

In general, all the mode of production since the neolitic revolution, which is the start of private ownership, tend to exploit the working class.
They do it differently that's all. Slaves, serf, workers.
However, there are subtleties specific to each mode of production. They don't produce the same effects. For example, their is no unemployment in feudalism. Nor is there mass immigration.

>>13511674
Prove surplus labour exists.

>>13511641
>However, there are subtleties specific to each mode of production.
You have no idea of what you're talking about.>>13508641 is right, marxism and socialism are meaningless words. Marx just critiqued his own society and called it "capitalism" than said it would collapse by itself and called the opposition to this bad thing in his society "communism". The entire thing is a farce.

The way you describe capitalism is basically "bad system that exploit workers". "All other systems with classes also exploited them but they are not capitalism because capitalism is different. Also, socialism will make everything better because there are no classes in socialism".
Go fuck yourself.

>>13511633
>So, now you're jumping from the conclusions drawn from the LTV being falsifiable, a premise which I have agreed upon, to that of the entire explanation being falsifiable, which is on you to demonstrate.
I said the predictions were empirically testable, which means the theory itself (i.e., the explanation) is falsifiable. we agree on this right?
>Once again, none of this contradicts my point that Marxian economics, like any other theory either inductive, deductive, or otherwise, can be assessed instrumentally as it contrasts with other competing theories.
okay, so this would be the claim that the theory is superfluous. I asked you to give an example of a theory that attempts to explain the same phenomena as the LTV and explain in virtue of what is this competing theory better.
>I'm not claiming that it's not, either.
okay, so are you agnostic towards the soundness of the LTV then?
>I agree, but to Marx it would probably be as a factor of the organic composition of labor embodied in a commodity as outlined in Volume III, or as the third element to which exchanged commodities are reducible as outlined in Volume I.
both of those things are just different ways of saying "value," which, again, is posited as a theoretical unobservable. we can't actually measure SNLT, practically.
> Even then, the thing shouldn't have to be directly observable in order to create a consistent system of equations by which it relates to equilibrium prices (as the sum of living labor, dead labor, and surplus value).
oh I think I get your point. value, the theoretical unobservable posited by the theory, is modified by the equalization of the rate of profit, which in turn generates "production prices," which is what Marx thinks coincides with prices at equilibrium. that's the relation between them.
>FYI we're talking about competitive equilibrium and not the minute fluctuations between individual transactions, so the distinction between "equilibrium" and "market" prices is moot.
the distinction I was making is between market prices not at equilibrium and market prices at equilibrium, so yeah I agree.
>My understanding was that it was the average labor time embodied in a particular commodity
roughly, yeah. average amount of unskilled labor required for a commodity's reproduction.

>>13511646
there's a difference between understanding marx and being a leftcom. leftcoms don't have the monopoly on reading

>>13511678
Easy. In the primitive tribe, everyone worked for the renewal of their living condition. No work was made in excess of what was needed to live, day after day. It was necessary labor.
In the neolitic, people began to make stocks. Now, it wouldn't be too bad, if the stocks were systematically the property of the people, but some people fucked the other, and succed in making them believe that the stock should be theirs. It was enforced with violence: the begining of the police.
The workers now had to work for themselves, to renew their living condition, but also for their master, by working for creating the stock, which ultimately belong to the owner of the means of production.

Thus, the workers had to work for them (necessary labor, necessary to produce enough to renew their living conditions (food, clothes etc...), and when they were finished with their necessary labor, they had to work for the owner of the means of production: surplus labor.

>>13511704
It seems these days they do. Commies are either blind or paralyzed.

>>13511691
>All other systems with classes also exploited them but they are not capitalism because capitalism is different.
They exploited them, since the neolitic revolution, but in different ways. There is a difference between being a slave, a serf, and a wage worker.

>>13511700
I'm getting something to eat, I'll try to respond to this in like an hour.

>>13511720
This isn't what I'm arguing. What I'm saying is that the terms you are using are extremely vague and nebulous.

For instance, give me your definition of socialism, please.

>>13511705
>No work was made in excess of what was needed to live, day after day
LOL. Are you implying that no one produced extra and stored it?

>>13511730
Actually, i don't have personnally a definition of socialism. I'm no socialist. And have greater ambition. Socialism is tiny. It is accomodating the exploitation of workers, to make them feel better, but they are still exploited of their work. And there is still work in socialism.

Look, i'm a beginner in Marxism, i'm finishing Das Kapital vol. 1, and i've read the 1844 manuscripts.
You know how often the word socialism has been pronounced? 0, in almost 1000 pages.

Maybe it'll come later, in vol. 2 and vol.3 but still haven't heard of socialism.
I've read about exploitation, separation, division of labor, surplus labor, capital accumulation, necessary labor, alienation, but no socialism.

>>13511732
Before the neolitic revolution, yes?
This has been documented.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.698.9360&rep=rep1&type=pdf

>>13511751
>Actually, i don't have personnally a definition of socialism
Of course you don't, and you never will because there isn't a consistent definition. But obviously, nazis aren't socialists though because socialism probably means "not capitalism" and nazis were evidently capitalsits, (just like the soviets by the way, who also weren't socialists). At best your definition of it will be whatever marx tells you to believe.

Good luck with your red bible, you fucking cultist.

>>13511768
>Good luck with your red bible, you fucking cultist.
My copy of Das Kapital is white.

>>13508816
This

>>13511596
>Ok, so you also need wages for it to be capitalism. Now define how socialism differenciates from this.
See:
>Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor.

>>13511611
>Why can't the slave be a commodity?
A slave can be a commodity. In capitalism, as opposed to the slave system, the workers are not commodities themselves and what becomes a commodity is their labour-power.

>whereas not being a full communist means you're a capitalist
Capitalist is someone who hires wage-labour.

>>13511650
>This is a system I'm making up right now. How would you describe it?
I would describe it as "something made up". Marx describes the real world, not your phantasms.

>>13511671
>Marx' "Classless society" would just recreate everything wrong with capitalism. Which is exactly what happened.
Where was this classless society? Was it the one that got ruined by the inability of the rulers to properly deal with the conflict of interests between the proletarian and peasant classes? If that's the one you mean then that doesn't sound very classless.

>>13511678
There are people who don't have family and don't produce anything, and yet they receive things produced by other people to consume. This is only possible if someone produces more than they consume themselves. QED.

>>13508855
>Fereyabend.
all he has is retarded conspiracy theories

>>13511785
Mine is orange and it has a picture of Marx

>>13511847
>>Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor.
So socialism, under your definition, doesn't have markets and products aren't exchanged. Under this definition, the only societies that can be described as "socialist" would be ones that existed before the existence of a state?
> Marx describes the real world, not your phantasms.
Marx's alternative to capitalism doesn't describe the real world at all, just speculation. Seems fairly phantasmagorical to me.

>>13509291
That's what Marx said. Then he died. We're still waiting.

>>13511847
>There are people who don't have family and don't produce anything, and yet they receive things produced by other people to consume. This is only possible if someone produces more than they consume themselves. QED.

That's a good one.

>>13511881
You fucking cultist :s

>>13511888
>Under this definition, the only societies that can be described as "socialist" would be ones that existed before the existence of a state?
Correct. Before the neolitic revolution. Although i don't like the term socialist. Doesn't mean shit. I prefer the term radical marxism. Anarcho-communism also seems okay.

>>13511888
>So socialism doesn't have markets and products aren't exchanged.
Yes.

>the only societies that can be described as "socialist" would be ones that existed before the existence of a state?
Sure, if such societies existed then they could be described as primitive socialism.

>Marx's alternative to capitalism doesn't describe the real world at all, just speculation.
Its possibility and character is inscribed in capitalism and its historical unfolding. It's not invented, but discovered in the real world:
>[W]e do not anticipate the world with our dogmas but instead attempt to discover the new world through the critique of the old. Hitherto philosophers have left the keys to all riddles in their desks, and the stupid, uninitiated world had only to wait around for the roasted pidgeons of absolute science to fly into its open mouth. [...]
>This does not mean that we shall confront the world with new doctrinaire principles and proclaim: Here is the truth, on your knees before it! It means that we shall develop for the world new principles from the existing principles of the world.

>>13511961
(by the way temporary thread id like in /biz could be nice, we don't know who answer to who, and even if we agree to 90%, there might be some differences).

>>13507534
>is neither true nor false

>>13511763
Why have you cited a completely irrelevant study that you have no doubt not bothered to read?
>It is demonstrated that the decline of Easter Island could have been avoided by implicit resource taxation.

>>13507534
Which modern price theory completely blows out of the water.

>>13511705
If a rotating capital was established by one person at their cost, why would it have been better if this was systematically made the property of the "people"? This would discourage economic activity and also have to be enforced by violence. Marxists are of course experts on the Neolithic as well as economics, politics, history etc but one small mistake the police began in the early modern period not the neolithic coercion is normally exercised by relatives or the whole community in tribal groups

>>13512150
Honestly Walras has the greatest grasp of how a price for a good is constructed: it is essentially determined by the subjective valuations of the bidders in the exchange. Sometimes people think the exchange is always open and free and fair. It isn’t, and many economic thinkers like Schumpeter and Kelso have stated how mergers and acquisitions necessarily must emerge which consolidate the capital.

Honestly, Game Theory verifies this finding and general observational truth. :3

>>13512060
"Sharing serves to prevent the accumulation of wealth in the hands
of few individuals who could then use their wealth to dominate others."

>>13512197
Also, a good composed of the factors of production like labor or other goods, also have these values work their way into the price of the good, meaning the price charged for the good fluctuates around the sun totals of the prices derived by bids in the market for each component. This includes labor, which is essentially a product whose value is determined exactly like goods.

>>13512204
That's a nice quote what does that have to do with your earlier unfounded assertion which isn't at all supported by that completely irrelevant study that you presented as an attempt to impress low Iq morons like yourself?

He was a bitter NEET who went through an extraordinary amount of effort to justify not working

>>13512301
This. I don't know if he ever actually set foot in a factory or worked a day in his life.

>>13510086
>>13509920
why is adam smith so lauded by the right wing anyway? he seems like a protomarxist

>>13512332
Smith's work taken as a whole is a defense of liberal values and capitalist development on its own terms. It never quite goes as far with its conclusions as early socialists like Proudhon or the Marx who looked at political economy. He just seems left-wing because, for all that, Smith (and Ricardo, and Mill, etc) were still in the business of giving a scientific account, something which was abandoned after marginalism took over and created "economics"

>>13510826
Now you're conflating "shitty standards of living" with "misery." But that's simply not true. Let's use suicide rates as a proxy; taking a quick look at the Wikipedia page I see that Europeans kill themselves at over double the rate of Africans. Religion seems correlated to "shitty standards of living" but the link to "misery" doesn't appear like you claim.

>>13507540

In one sense yes, as in having absolute meaning and relieving fear of death, but in another sense no, as it also places quite a heavy responsibility on the individual, atleast in some doctrines (some have been watered down so far there is barely any doom and gloom left)

>>13509362
>the india good man

>>13507544
Nope, just a verification of obvious fact.

>>13510467

labor value theory might be false, but it at least served as a foundation for sign value theory which is correct. i agree with everything else