/lit/ - Literature

>>14970184
pic rel did all of that much better + he wasn't a cringe lolbertarian who shilled for corporate power

THIS MOTHERFUCKING SON OF A BITCH DESTROYED MY MORAL CONVICTIONS I'M NOT A MARXIST AND I DON'T CARE ABOUT HIS ECONOMIC WRITINGS BUT HIS AMORALISM RESONATED WITH ME WHAT ARE SOME BOOKS THAT REFUTE HIM ON MORALITY?

>>14953942
I think pic related has an answer to this

conventional morality is whatever lends support and legitimacy to the existing mode of production - feudual ethics justifies feudalism, capitalist ethics justifies capitalism. there are neither right nor wrong ethical theories, there are just those that are in agreement with the driving force of historical dialectic and are therefore progressive and those that oppose the expansion of material productive forcess and are therefore reactionary and regressive

>>14914078
Zeno was refuted by Hegel (pbuh), Marx (pbuh) and the science of dialectical materialism
>The objection is beside the point; in reality a pound of sugar is never equal to a pound of sugar—a more delicate scale always discloses a difference. Again one can object: but a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is this true—all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, colour, etc. They are never equal to themselves. A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself “at any given moment”.
>Aside from the extremely dubious practical value of this “axiom”, it does not withstand theoretical criticism either. How should we really conceive the word “moment”? If it is an infinitesimal interval of time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that “moment” to inevitable changes. Or is the “moment” a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero of time? But everything exists in time; and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation; time is consequently a fundamental element of existence. Thus the axiom ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’ signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if it does not exist.
from Trotsky's "The ABC of Materialist Dialectics"

>>14861760
because capitalism cannot translate individual rationality into collective rationality, what you're proposing could be a way out but is unattainable in a system that is axiomatically founded upon decentralized decision making in a society composed of atomized invidual agents. in order to implement your plan you'd have to ensure coordination of actions of all capitalists in the world and therefore replace individual decision making with collective planning that is socialism. furthermore your plan is not incentive compatible without introducing a third party that is the state to command the actions of all individuals. this is because when everyone is buying so that the prices surge in the near future every single capitalist has the incentive to break out from the established plan and sell thereby accumulating the speculation premium. notice that this is precisely why Lenin and neo-Marxists point out to monopolization as a tendency of late capitalism - monopolization decreases the number of economic agents and therefore makes large scale planning more attainable and provides a counter tendency to the falling rate of profit

>>14811910
Misesian praxeology is the foundation of the most fertile scientific paradigm of the last 200 years namely historical materialism. Mises points out that human action is purposeful excercise of effort towards attainment of some goals however he is agnostic as to what said goals could be, he derides classical and neoclassical economists for their adoption of the homo oeconomicus model of human and concludes that praxeology has nothing to say about the motivation of agents. Some agents embrace thoughtless materialism and consoomerism, some want to attain only the minimal amount of goods necessary to sustain themselves and their loved ones and some devote themselves entirely to spiritual matters. While this is a pregnant and desired critique of neoclassical economics, it rebounds and hits Marxist materialism too. What Mises did not realize is that the distribution of motivation is fairly Gaussian and hence most people will tend to emphasize material rather than spiritual needs. A Marxist is a Misesian praxeologist who understands statistics.

>>14675702
>>14675703
>state of lit in 2020
>responding with le reddit memes
you do realize that peasants proletarians and paupers won't give a shit about muh property rights and will simply take whatever they want from you in times of crisis right? elementary anthropology refutes libertarianism, recognition and acknowledgement of property rights is not axiomatic. it is conditional on the general economic affluence of all the members of the society. if we were all born into a state of scarcity of food noone - including libertarians - would give a fuck about property rights and NAP, we would be instead trying to backstab one another in an attempt to sustain our lives which is the most basic instinct of the human being which precedes the recognition of authority and property rights. libertarians make the same mistake in politics as the classical economists in economics - trying to abstract their theory from history and where we find ourselves our development as a civilization. this mistake in economics was pointed out by Marx and the mistake in politics has just been pointed out by me

Alright, seeing that majority of /lit/ are actually illiterate brainlets it is necessary to refute some non-arguments used against Marx's labour theory of value
>b-but Marx's theory is just Ricardo's cost of production theory which is wrong
no, in the classical world it was assumed that average cost would be the limit of price because of competitive forces of the market however nowhere did the classical economists explain how costs - which are prices on their own - come into being, in particular Marx scrutinized them for not extending their analysis into the labour market which would inevitably force them to distinguish between labour and labour power
>b-but I put a lot of effort into shitting that turd doesn't it mean that in the light of Marx's theory it is valuable?
no because your shit lacks use value. use value is a prerequisite of exchange value however not all things which have use value are exchanged on the market e.g. a sunday meal with your family
>b-but what if I happen to bump into a diamond while taking a morning walk? picking it up is effortless and therefore the diamond is worthless in Marxian terms
no, this is a very common misconception. it is SOCIALLY NECESSARY LABOUR TIME and not just labour time which determines exchange value. the fact that you found this diamond almost effortlessly would allow you to sell this diamond for a price well below the normal market price but that's just a deviation from the law of value, once you get rid of your diamond the law of value still holds simply because there are no more diamonds to be found effortlessly. however if finding diamonds lying on the ground became more common, it would entail diminution of socially necessary labour time and therefore diminution of exchange value of diamonds. keep in mind that LTV is a theory of long run exchange values and in the short run we might find deviations from it.
>b-but what about works of art?
irrelevant. even Ricardo constrained the utility of his version of LTV to the domain of easily reproducible goods. non-reproducible goods make up a negligible part of country's national product and can be abstracted from, what mattered for the classical economists and Marx wasn't some luxury goods auction but the dynamics of capitalist mass production as a whole

>>14587291
based

I've decided today that I'm going to make myself more formidable and interesting by choosing to adhere to a niche and intentionally esoteric ideology which I've dubbed Mathematical Marxism. So far I've gathered this literature to guide me:
>Plato - Complete Works
>Aristotle - Complete Works with emphasis on Logic and Metaphysics
>Euclid - Elements
>Archimedes - Complete Works
>Diophantus - Arithmetica
>Cardano - Ars Magna
>Descartes - Complete Works
>Spinoza - Ethics
>Newton - Principia, Opticks and Theory of Fluxions
>Isaac Barrow - Complete Works
>Euler -Elements of Algebra
>Smith - Wealth of Nations
>Ricardo - Principles of Political Economy
>Gauss - Disquisitiones Arithmeticae
>Hegel - Science of Logic and Phenomenology of Spirit with emphasis put on Hegel's discussion of calculus
>Mill - Science of Logic and Principles of Political Economy
>Marx - Capital, Grundrisse, Theories of Surplus Value and Mathematical Manuscripts
>Engels - Dialectic of Nature
>Luxemburg - Accumulation of Capital
>Hilferding - Financial Capital
>Georg Cantor - Theory of Transfinite Numbers
>Boole - Laws of Thought
>Lenin - Materialism and Empirocriticism, Philosophical Notebooks and State and Revolution
>Sraffa - Production of Commodities
>Robinson - Accumulation of Capital
>Kalecki - Complete Works
>Lange - Complete Works
>Bourbaki Group - Complete Works
>Serge Lang - Algebra
>Rudin - Principles of Analysis
>Spivak - Calculus on Manifolds
>Morishima - Ricardo's Economics and Marx's Economics
>Kozo Uno - Principles of Political Economy

what am I missing from this list?

>>14442283
>>14442277
once class conflicts are eliminated there will be no need for the state. anarchists are ethically opposed to the state as a concept whereas Marxists are smart enough to realize the utility of it in winning the class struggle for the proletariat. read Lenin's "State and Revolution" midwits, your posts reveal that you're both painfully average and probably don't read anything except wikipedia articles in order to feel more superior and literate than the normies

>>14436286
You cannot "meme" anything into becoming part of the Western Canon. The Western Canon is the reflection of the material forces that control our society. If the establishment (that is the bourgeois capitalists) decide that Guenon is useful for their reactionary propaganda purposes, then he might even make it into school reading lists.

>Georgism as in taxing landlords
>not killing the landlords, nationalizing land ownership thus absorbing all land rent, pooling it and further redistributing it as social residual
cringe

>>14419584
>risk taking
there is no risk in socialism/communism, a state-owned company producing water doesn't risk anything because 1) it's chief aim is the greatest social welfare, not the maximization of profits and 2) people will always have to drink water so there is no risk involved. Risk exists only in capitalism where a given sector of production is divided between competing firms. Of course central planners guide the whole system so that there is no misallocation of resources.
>rent seeking
Socialism takes the framework of the toiler. From his perspective, there is effectively little difference between risk premium and rent seeking.
> Everything is just bad to them if the employee does not own the means of production and the fruits of their labour
have you even read anything written by an ACTUAL socialist and NOT by a reddit Chapofag? Because if you had, you would have known that socialism doesn't do away with surplus value since surplus value allows for accumulation of capital and social investments. The difference is that unlike in capitalism those investments are not motivated by profit and this fraction of accumulated surplus value which constitutes conspicuous consumption of luxuries by capitalists is instead given out to the people as social dividend. Read Lange.

>mfw people on this board don't realize that Stirner was retroactively refuted by Marx

Critique of the Gotha Programme

>>14290011
>bartering and trading shit is capitalism
you're parotting Adam Smith and Marx DESTROYED Smith's ahistoricism. read theory brainlet

>>14277083
read theory

>>14271738
Start with the classics
Marx uses the whole body of classical economics to argue against capitalism. The essentials would be:
-Smith (obviously)
-Ricardo
-Mill
-Say
-de Sismondi
you can suplement them with
-Tooke
-McCulloch
-Cairnes
-physiocrats
-Whewell
there are a lot of companions to classical economics so it shouldn't be too complicated to get over
once you're finished learn linear algebra and I don't mean bullshit like you do in American college (Cramer's rule, solving basic linear equation) but more serious stuff (eigenvalues, kernels and linear maps) trust me it will come in handy especially when you keep it mind not to sperg out into math and read on theory of linear economic models
once you've done that read Marx in the following order
-Wage Labor and Capital
-Grundrisse
-Capital vol 1
-Capital vol 2
-Capital vol 3
-Theories of Surplus Value
all the way you can suplement this with companions on Marx's economics and Marx's more lightweight readings like Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts and German Ideology

>>14235279
brainlet argument, I can for example claim that anyone has ownership only to chosen parts of his body but not to his body as a whole thereby avoiding these retarded "contradiction", it's not even a Marxist argument that objection was made by your own libertarian philosopher Roderick Long. in fact I can restrict my own freedom as much as I please for the sake of an argument while still retaining ownership over the parts of my body that are necessary for me to make this argument. also you have to be pretty brainscorched to think that a logical leap from ownership over my body to unrestricted property rights of multinational corporations is somehow trivial and obvious.

Was he a talmudist?

>Marx's father Heinrich, whose original name was Hirschel ha-Levi, was the son of a rabbi and the descendant of talmudic scholars for many generations. Hirschel's brother was chief rabbi of Trier. Heinrich Marx married Henrietta Pressburg, who originated in Hungary and whose father became a rabbi in Nijmegen, Holland. Heinrich received a secular education, obtained a law degree, detached himself from his family and eventually also from his religion

To me it seems absurd, that people try to deny the Talmudic or Judaic elements of his works, despite "Das Kapital" reads like a talmudic critique of the goyim/heathen nations power structures.

It is more than clear to any neutral observer that his ideas had their origins in the Talmud.