/lit/ - Literature

>>3364291

yes and i thought yes i will yes i said yes

>>3364656
that last yes should be capitalized

>>3364656
Subtle.

>>3364661

that would be emulating joyce though

Marx is a good historian and a good read. The LTV isn't his, but his elaboration is an important part of modern history. You should definitely read it.

It gets a bit dry but it's not difficult at all, and his examination of English industrialization is really really interesting. There's some messed up shit in there.

>>3364749

Who was just emulating Nietzsche.

>>3364791
>I don't even read!

>>3364807

Oh come now. Tell me the main message of Zarathustra was not "Say yes to life!"

>>3364813
>Oh come now. Tell me the main message of Zarathustra was not "Say yes to life!"
>implying you can condense either Zarathustra or Joyce's output to a vapid platitude

eek

>>3364825

Oh, come now, stop being edgy and admit condensation is an important skill.

>>3364836
im not being edgy, my position is the widely accepted one

reducing nietzsche or joyce to a new-age self-help book catchphrase is edgy tho

i'm reading it right now actually. halfway through vol 2.

i strongly agree with the ethos behind the work, to envisage unalienated social relations and to endorse the fulfilment of human potentials without degrading them to objects to be expropriated.

that being said, there are just so many issues with the "scientific" approach he claims to take. for one, the labour theory of value is totally incorrect. value doesn't necessarily derive from amount of labour time expended on an object (exchange -value), and profit isn't necessarily derived from the expropriation of labourers (surplus-value). this is especially true now, profit can be totally arbitrary, something is worth how much someone is willing to pay for it. take an art auction: with each bid the value magically increases without anyone have being expropriated. superstructure thus influences base, not the other way round. (baudrillard talked about this a lot i think)

the critiques of liberalism were good though, but i think he under appreciates the role democracy plays in all this and believes solely in an economic answer. once you fix the economy the political and social structures will be perfect! so the suggestion goes. (rawls and habermas talk about this i think)

>>3364869

I'm part of an imaginary, unified crowd. Therefore, I'm right. Sexy fallacy, anon.

>>3364907

I'm back. I think the technical term is argumentum ad populum or something in faggy latin or greek like that.

>>3364876
>the labour theory of value is totally incorrect. value doesn't necessarily derive from amount of labour time expended on an object (exchange -value)

Just because value "doesn't necessarily" derive from an amount of labour time does not mean that the LT of V is "totally incorrect." Many, if not most times, wages are the largest part of the costs of production. For example, in the city I live in over 90% of the police budget is salaries. The "good" they produce is supposedly safety and security.

Auctions are not the normative form of exchange. Les prix fixes, the cost of labour rolled up in the product, have been the norm since the Department Stores of Paris in the nineteenth century.

>>3364907
>>3364909

This is what I hate about /lit/. Most of you are incapable of critical thought. Your objections arise only when there is a divergence from logic: oh that was this or that logical fallacy! your argument is thus invalid! Analytical thinking has destroyed your ability to analyse things beyond mere surfaces.

Marx was interesting because he always went deeper. He didn't stop where there was a logical fallacy, in fact he relished it. He understood that contradiction was a vital element of truth. If "The Truth" didn't have some sort of fallacy or contradiction in it, then it wasn't "The Truth". The world is dynamic and full of contradictions, and if a theory doesn't encapsulate that its probably bullshit.

>>3364876
>i strongly agree with the ethos behind the work, to envisage unalienated social relations and to endorse the fulfilment of human potentials without degrading them to objects to be expropriated.

This sentence made me feel so many feels.
>tfw I was a teenage
>tfw I still had my illusions
>tfw I still had a God


>my face when I think back on all of that

>>3364949

Haters gon hate. :).

>>3364934

what about factory workers in china then? they produce something for $X but it ends up being sold for $100X. according to Marx the value of the object derived solely from the amount of labour expended on the object, but here that's just not true.

>>3364958

>tfw not a teenager or a theist or deluded (hopefully)
>yfw cynical resignation has eaten your sould

>>3364977

*soul

>>3364968

You're totally forgetting about transportation costs, a large proportion of which is labour as well.

>>3364968
You aren't taking into account the fact that the reason why the product is being made in china is because the cost of labour in USA/MEX/etc. is much higher. That is why the factories are shipped overseas, so that the retailer can maintain a *relatively* low price for the product while still making a large profit

>>3364968

All you seem to be able to see is production and consumption. You seem rather oblivious to distribution and circulation, which Marx elaborated exhaustively in The Grundrisse.

>>3364968
>>3364968
... Read the fucking book, he explains it there. PROTIP: you can't overturn a ground breaking, world-shaking economics text-book with an off-the-cuff objection. If somebody seems to be doing this, they haven't read the book.

The point Marx is making is not that products are sold for the same price as the wages it cost to make those products. That would be ridiculous. The point he makes is that labour is the ONLY value creating activity, and that an object's minimum-possible-value(which it generally stays close to due to competition) is the minimum amount of labour required for its construction.

I can't remember whether he wrote about shit like diamonds- he probably just saw them as unimportant and exceptional cases.

You can't understand it completely without first understanding Hegel.

>>3365025
Bullshit.

Understanding Hegel is really hard, and Marx is not really all that Hegelian. Some people read him as a Hegelian (like Lukacs) but it's never been the dominant school of Marxism.

You should only really read Hegel in relation to Marx if you get seriously into epistemology. Marx is very interesting from a epistemological perspective, but having an idea of the intricacies of this isn't that important. A lot of Marxists simply read Marx as a positivist, and it's close enough to work just fine unless you're a philosopher, and sometimes even if you are.

>>3365035
The entire debate between him and Stirner is basically meaningless without knowing Hegel first.

>>3365067
I don't know about that, but since outside of /lit/ Stirner is a nonentity, it doesn't matter. Nobody reads Marx's long and very boring book about why Stirner was wrong, because nobody reads Stirner, because egoism is stupid and Nietzsche's more interesting.

>>3364949

I think /lit/ mostly throws out claims of logical fallacies because it's the easiest way to say nu-uh I don't agree.

>but it's never been the dominant school of Marxism.

wut?

Sometimes my brain hurts because of your crappy board, Americunts

so .. prove that the ltv is wrong..

anyone?

i have a question about it, do you guys learn about the tlv in highschool in your countries? like the theory of evolution??

I didnt, I guess our government wants good sheeps

>>3365079
>outside of /lit/ Stirner is a nonentity
I can't tell if that was a bad pun or if you're just an idiot...

>>3364909
>>3364836
>doesn't realize edgy contains an appeal to the masses within but no implied truth judgment
>fails to realize this truth judgment is a requirement for logical fallacies

you suck at rhetoric

this is what happens when imbeciles discover wikipedia.

>>3364968

Workers get paid for the value of their labour-power. This is the amount needed to keep the worker fed, entertained, clothed and so on. Basically the amount of money needed to keep the worker coming into work every day. This amount varies from country to country depending on what luxuries the workers are used to, the degree of class struggle etc etc.

The worker IS NOT paid for the labour itself. If this was true then there would be no exploitation (therefore no profits).

Have you read Marx? People refuting LTV seem to bring up the same simple things over and over again, it would really be easier just to read his work (or even the work of bourgeois economists who subscribed to some version of the LTV)

>>3365234
What do you expect us to do? Construct mathematical proof of whether the TLV is correct or not?
Every arguement supporting or against this theory is purely based on empiricism and we don't know wheter we can generalize that for like every situation

>>3365079
>because egoism is stupid and Nietzsche's more interesting

Nietzsche is more colourful and forgiving, more cultured and tasteful, but that's about it. In terms of tearing down the complacent fictions that make up the ideology of civilization, that might not even be too helpful.

>>3364968
What is perceived value?