/lit/ - Literature

>>20446899
>>20446874
you are both wrong. the wage share is constrained to a rather narrow range, around 40-60% (see How Labor Powers the Global Economy by Farjoun, Machover and Zachariah). in Marxist terms this means a rate of exploitation of 66-150%. of course (in natura) productivity goes up, that's a feature of capitalism. wages staying about the same adjusted for inflation is also expected. the graph can't really be measuring "productivity" in money since that would imply the wage share decreasing (RoE increasing), which we don't see

>>19272421
why not just link to the copies on marxists.org?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/index.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/index.htm

>>18791942
you seem like the kind of person who would go "but science is as much about faith as religion is!". but materialist analysis is able to make testable predictions, for example about the falling rate of profit, which is born out in the data. this cannot be said for idealist notions like marginalism, which can fit any observation

>>18652479
>not realizing it happens because of sunspots

>>18652645
>The historical transience of capital
>The downward trend in the rate of profit since XIX century
>Esteban Ezequiel Maito
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/55894/1/MPRA_paper_55894.pdf

>>18653232
>t. historylet