/lit/ - Literature

>>22597464
>no theory can explain actual market prices
Yet, Marx prided his own theory to be objective compared to the rest of the economists. "Scientific socialism". Now it turns out, that his guess is (at best) as good as any other.

>that capitalism requires correspondence between VALUE
Once you fix the transformation problem, there is no correspondence between value and prices. There is no tendency of the rates of profit to fall. Meaning, marxian values are useless. They don't do shit.

>if your math leads to a contradiction, that's a sign that your mathematical abstraction has detached itself from the real world
Yes. It's called "proof by contradiction". That's how it just proved that marxism is wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

>because value is a social relation
>what else?
EVERYTHING ELSE. Pic related.

>by obtaining average technological level and the average work intensity and seeing the output
No >>22597361
>lol retard
Finance is unproductive, retard. We are supposed to pretend that fictitious capital generates no surplus, retard.
Yet, lack of insurance (unproductive labor, according to Marx) is why prehistorical Australians reverted back from agriculture to hunting-gathering. No 'parasitic' insurance, no surplus, capiche?
Which means it is productive, yet that would devastate the whole fucking theory.

>lol ultraretard
"Finally, we should consider, if only briefly, the meaning of *non*-capitalist production. Recall that, according to Marx, labour can be productive only if it is controlled by capitalists. It must be ‘directly consumed in the course of production for the valorization of capital’ – that is, tied to capital through the wage contract (Marx 1864: 1038). The problem is that, even if we accept that capitalist control is a prerequisite for the creation of value, it is not clear why the only gauge for such control is the wage contract."
"To clarify the difficulty, consider LockheedMartin, one of the world’s largest military contractors. The owners of LockheedMartin certainly control the work performed by their employees. But don’t they also have some impact on the work performed at the U.S. Defense Department, with obvious bearings on their own business? The latter impact may be indirect, but is it smaller than the former? Similarly with the US government. The government controls the employees of its own Defense Department, but doesn’t it also control to some extent, through its laws and procurement policies, the employees of LockheedMartin?"
"The answers to these questions are crucial for the computation of labour values. For, if we accept that government workers are controlled by capitalists at least to some degree, we can no longer treat such workers as unproductive. And likewise, but in reverse, with privately employed workers: if we concede that they are not entirely controlled by capitalists, perhaps we should no longer treat them as strictly productive."

>>20747052
>Something I can get a (somewhat) complete understanding of his ideas without having to read thousands of pages of dense theory

>>20470483
>Marxian economics is still relevant.
No.

>>19873424
Start with supplementary literature

>>19861845
Better yet, read Nitzan and Bichler

>>19738550
>Everyone should though.
No need anymore. There are better and fresher alternatives.

>>19738542
>defining capitalisim
There are better definitions.

https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/09/04/stocks-are-up-wages-are-down-what-does-it-mean/
"If this ritual seems arbitrary, that’s because it is. There’s nothing objective about the capitalization formula. It doesn’t point to any fundamental truth about the world, either natural or social. The capitalization formula is simply a ritual — an article of faith.
This arbitrariness doesn’t lessen the importance of capitalization. Far from it. Rituals are always arbitrary. But their effects are always real. Just ask Bob, who’s about to be ritually sacrificed to appease the god of rain. The ritual is arbitrary — founded on a worldview that is false. Killing Bob won’t bring rain. But the rulers believe it will. And so Bob dies. The ritual is arbitrary. The effects are real."

>>19653856
>Recommend me a good introduction to Marx
"Capital as Power"

>>18579529

>>18545902
>Market price varies from labor time, but only roughly +10% -10%
Transformation Problem, dumbfuck. It doesn't vary, because there is no fucking way to convert values into prices. Hence, you can deal only with prices.
And even if "labor time" makes some mythical values, you cannot prove neither that labor is the only factor affecting it, nor how much. "As it stands, there is nothing in the theory itself to tell us whether labour values explain 1 per cent of prices, 99 per cent, or anything in between, and whether this explanatory power remains stable or changes over time."

>You measure time.
You cannot, dumbfuck >>18545774 Are you retarded, or something?

"the most important problem is that Hilferding counts as skill-creating value not the total number of hours necessary to create the skill, but only those hours that the worker or his employer end up paying for. And it is here that the bifurcations of political economy and its equilibrium assumptions again come back to haunt us.
Since in reality the ‘economy’ is neither fully commodified nor separate from ‘politics’, much of the education and training is free – provided by the household, community and government"


>>18545958
>The situation are unequal. But the law is equal.
>>18545739
>Just ask Bob, who’s about to be ritually sacrificed to appease the god of rain. The ritual is arbitrary — founded on a worldview that is false. Killing Bob won’t bring rain. But the rulers believe it will. And so Bob dies. The ritual is arbitrary. The effects are real."
>>18545780
>This was no longer a secondary problem. Marx claimed his theory to be superior to the bourgeois alternatives, partly because it did something they couldn’t: it objectively derived the rate of profit from the material conditions of the labour process. Bortkiewicz turned this asset into a liability: he showed that Marx’s original framework was logically inconsistent