/lit/ - Literature

>>14737141
materialist analysis of historical trends is exclusively empirically backed- conversely modern day keynesians are laughed at when they read tea leaves in a desperate attempt to predict a bull run on msnbc money hour

Wait bros wtf?? I thought Marx was debunked??

>>13373874
>Only he is wrong and no such thing has happened, profits have continued to rise.
lmao

>>12053531
The global rate of profit still tends to fall though.

>>11860210
I'm too drunk and ignorant to explain this well, but basically when a business makes, let's say, one million of profits each year, its rate of profit is falling because 1mil/2mil = 50%, 1mil/3mil = 33.3% and so on. If you want a stable rate of profit, you would need exponential growth; and when natural monopolies arise (think of Amazon), that means exponential growth of the working population dedicated to that business, exponential growth of demand, exponential decrease in wages (which ultimately means decrease in demand), and so on. At some point, physics will reminds you that all of this shit can't simply happen forever. Therefore acceleration will bring communism.
To be fair, I haven't read that chapter of Capital yet so that's only my intuitive understanding of the concept of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and I may be spouting bullshit, but I would be glad if someone could correct me. In the mean time, see this if you are interested:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypJ_tcnfaWA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall

OH NO NO NO NO

>>10288480
What predictions by Marx did Kim test? I am willing to draw a red line between Marx and Lenin, Stalin and Mao, but I don't see what Marxist hypothesis got tested by North Korea or the Khmer Rouge.
Pic related is empirical data backing up one of Marx' theories.

>>6477209
So this is the Global Rate of Profit.

Can you explain what would cause the rate of profit to massively increase? Is it destruction of wealth?