/lit/ - Literature

>>14906142
Because Marxism involves agreeing with most of the critique, following the core analyze of Marxism, and see if it still pans out.
And in most cases it won't pan out, because Marxism isn't a stone tablet like most ideologies are. Instead they are a bunch of guidelines that is followed meticulously to create the work of Marx.
The end result is that Marxism post Marx can apply Marxism framework to expand AND defend his theories, unlike most other theories will get debunked when encountering the first chisel of society.

It also means Marx debunked his own works, in his own lifetime, because Marxism is a decent tool.
Which means every single debunk can end with some forms of analyze of the means of production, and how its seize, invalidation it entirely if its not deep enough.

>>14909485
>Doesn't that just mean that the capitalist will be able to get more profit? Why would the value of the widget go down?
The thing is, it only makes sense once you distance yourself from the short term for the people involved.
Short term? There is gain.

Long term?
There is examples of gain and loss in both cases. I.e Industrialization is a very negative case, and so is the Saudi Oil wars.
But there is examples of the opposite, where the surplus free labor can now be used better. Or the cumulative improvements improve profits by improving efficiency trough the entire economy, to the point where you expect a average worker to make years of profit within months.

Essentially if Supply and Demand gets skewed enough to impact national labor, wacky shit happens like compete destabilization of entire economies.
Its one of the biggest problems the third world face: Any economy they can develop, can cease to exist in moments if there is tech improvements in the sector they specialize in.