/lit/ - Literature

>>23518211
Because then >>23518192 someone would bring Ian Steedman. And the same logic that crumbles the neoclassic mainstream, would topple down marxist dogmas as well.

>>23495819
>what other economic literature should I read?
Nitzan J., Bichler Sh. - Capital as Power (2009) (specifically, its chapters on Marxism)


>Paul Cockshott
https://bnarchives.yorku.ca/308/
https://bnarchives.yorku.ca/308/2/20101200_cockshott_nitzan_bichler_testing_the_ltv_exchange_web.htm

"Cockshott claims that this isn’t the case with Marx’s labour theory of value. Unlike the neoclassical util, the elementary particle of Marxism – socially necessary abstract labour time – can be objectively observed and measured. ‘It is possible’, he says, ‘to use input-output tables to work out how many hours of labour went into producing the total output of each industry’.

But this claim is false.

In fact – and as Cockshott knows full well – the only way to ‘know’ labour values is the neoclassical way: by revelation. Whereas neoclassicists assume that prices reveal utils, Marxists assume that prices reveal socially necessary abstract labour time. And that is it.

As they stand, the quantities of utils and labour values exist not as empirical observations, but as religious-like visions. They emerge not from open-ended research and scientific exploration, but from circular rituals that make them true by definition."

>>22666732
>His theories when applied
>>22666767
>We can say that about mainstream economics as well.

And - to double the irony - BOTH mainstream AND marxian economics are wrong on the very SAME grounds. The reason why one theory is "unworthy", necessitates calling the other one such as well.

>>22595131
>How is this wrong?
1. The second transformation (production prices to market prices) is problematic -> real world does not conform to market equilibrium -> no explanation of real world prices -> useless theory
2. The first transformation (labor to production prices) is mathematically erroneous -> Bortkiewicz's transformation problem (Marx converts surplus value counted in labour time into profits counted in prices, but does not do the same for constant and variable capital) -> when fixed, no tendency for the rate of profit to equalize across the economy
3. joint production problem (pic related) (it also renders marx susceptible to the very same Sraffa's Cambridge Controversy critique, which revealed neoclassical economics methodology as fraud)
4. unit of value problem (why *only* labour?)
5. productivity definition problem (how the fuck to objectively differentiate social necessity in socially necessary abstract labour hours?)
6. finance ('fictitious capital') problem -> credit, investment, insurance, advertising, etc. clearly play a huge role, redistributing and reshaping everything across sectors, yet marxoids just ignore them.
7. government role problem -> laws, healthcare, school education are important, yet we are to pretend that they don't affect shit.
7. single commodity problem -> is a car produced in 1970s and a car produced in 1980s (with slight alterations) the same commodity or different ones? -> different knowledge, different production process, etc.
8. average socially necessary abstract labor time measuring problem

>>18580482
>But are regulated by the amount of labor
Computation of which produces zero or negative amounts of value, if we try to measure joint-production. Meaning, the labor theory is shit.