/lit/ - Literature

i shit in a toilet

the toilet flushes it away

who owns my shit? the toilet? my digestive tract, or hte mexicoon who assembled the food in the field?

>>12557730
the LTV isn't a normative theory of who deserves to own what.

>>12557724
um, sweaty, this is a redpilled board

>>12557770
if the ltv gettin used to justify stealing the capitalists return on capital then it do be tho

>>12557730
i own your shit and i watch you from an orbital satellite array, as i watch the others. Big Data

>>12557788
the theory doesn't attempt to justify that. the theory simply concludes that capitalism is an unsustainable system. if we're interested in preserving humanity, we should abolish it.

>>12557788
>capitalists return on capital

theft

face it, you're never going to be porkie, why side with them?

>>12557854
>you're never going to have interests in business

tell it to my stock portfolio

>>12557860
have fun while you can

>>12557865
definitely beats going through life as an angry and poor marxist waiting for a revolution that isn't coming

>labor theory of value

>>12557885
>I pos ted it agen, mommy!

imagine still be committed to socialist revolution after the fall of the soviet union

>He had been droning along about "value," comparing the Marxist theory with the orthodox "use" theory. Mr. Dubois had said, "Of course, the Marxian definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero. By corollary, unskillful work can easily subtract value; an untalented cook can turn wholesome dough and fresh green apples, valuable already, into an inedible mess, value zero. Conversely, a great chef can fashion of those same materials a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart, with no more effort than an ordinary cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet.

>"These kitchen illustrations demolish the Marxian theory of value -- the fallacy from which the entire magnificent fraud of communism derives -- and to illustrate the truth of the common-sense definition as measured in terms of use."

>Dubois had waved his stump at us. "Nevertheless -- wake up, back there! -- nevertheless the disheveled old mystic of Das Kapital, turgid, tortured, confused, and neurotic, unscientific, illogical, this pompous fraud Karl Marx, nevertheless had a glimmering of a very important truth. If he had possessed an analytical mind, he might have formulated the first adequate definition of value . . . and this planet might have been saved endless grief.

best justification for the existence of the Marxist concept of "value" we had so far was to determine equilibrium prices (which are really nothing but production cost + profit). anyone want to give that another shot?

>>12557865
>have fun while you can
/leftypol/ has been predicting collapse for over a year now. when is it going to happen?

>>12557904
equilibrium depends on the demand curve bro

>>12557886
>I pos ted it agen, mommy!
>LTV
This. The whole marxism meme is getting a bit stale.

>mudpie argument

LMAO

>>12557886
Shut up dyke incel. When was the last time you felt the erotic touch of a man? You have no use value, no man performs labor on you you utter abhorrence to the male race

>>12557915
oh its coming, no doubt about it. Its not only leftypol, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone in the street who doesn't think an economic recession is in the near future

>>12557915
>"the time to buy is when there is blood in the streets"

let the market drop, i copped some super dank reits in 2008 been eatin good off that for years lmao

>>12557928
>no man performs labor on you

holy shit sick diss my sides were not prepped

>>12557917
Marxists claim neoclassical economics can't determine prices when supply and demand are exactly equal. Not sure how that's supposed to be the case, since equilibrium price is just the intersection of the supply and demand curves.

>>12557917
>>12557939
supply and demand don't explain why the equilibrium price is at the magnitude it's at rather than another.

>>12557929
>oh its coming, no doubt about it
When? and based on what?
Post portfolio.

>>12557942
what? equilibrium is literally where the curves intersect, if demand drops the price goes down, etc.

>>12557942
are you talking about Smith's natural price? that's just production cost + profit

>>12557942
i guess you stayed home to fap on the day they covered that in econ101

>>12557951
right, so supply and demand can only explain deviations from equilibrium price. not equilibrium price itself.
>>12557952
yes. prices of production oscillate around value, for Marx.

>>12557942
Lmao wut

>>12557963
shifts in the demand curve don't explain why the equilibrium price is at the magnitude it's at rather than another.

>Surplus-value is the difference between the amount raised through a sale of a product and the amount it cost to the owner of that product to manufacture it
>According to Marx's theory, surplus value is equal to the new value created by workers in excess of their own labor-cost, which is appropriated by the capitalist as profit when products are sold.
I don't get it. If I sell a product at a loss, does that mean that my workers have stolen value from me?

>>12557984
yeah you have to have the supply curve, i deleted that to look for a better one, but instead of doing your homework for you, why don't you dust of your econ textbook from undergrad

>>12557987
it means ure a dumby

>>12557987
marx's theories don't account for risk which is what the return on capital is compensation for, but marx is dumb so who cares, if u want a less retarded look at entrepreneurship try some schumpeter, but even then who gives a shit

>>12557987
>Surplus-value is the difference between the amount raised through a sale of a product and the amount it cost to the owner of that product to manufacture it
this is incorrect. surplus value is the difference between the total value produced by the worker and the value produced during the time it took him to reproduce the value of his labor-power (i.e., the amount of work for which he is compensated in wages).

>>12557994
shifts in both the supply and demand curves don't explain why the equilibrium price is at the magnitude it's at rather than another.

>>12558002
so what if he produces negative value and the startup goes out of business, shall he pay the capitalist for his losses?

>>12557995
Am I wrong?
>>12558002
Is this not the same thing?

>>12558009
how could one produce "negative value."

>>12558006
this is your brain on marxism

>>12558006
You mean the equations for the curves of supply and demand do not explain the position of their intersection?
What?

>>12558011
exchange value is only realized at the moment of exchange, meanwhile the workers have still produced value for you

>>12557967
but there's no such thing as a default equilibrium price that any commodity will always magically return to. the term 'equilibrium price' has no meaning apart from the intersection of a given supply curve and demand curve.

>>12558014
by producing shit that costs less than the cost of the inputs, duh

>>12558021
oh rly, did u not see apple set its iphone xs price too high for the demand curve and have to backpedal on pricing by giving all kinds of discounts and free gift cards etc, especially in the chinese market

>>12557803
but it's not unsustainable... the work of the capitalist is just as, if not more, valuable than the worker's.

>>12557854
its not theft just like how interest is not theft.

>>12557865
that meme was made for the dip that happened a few months ago. and then it recovered. duh. the economy will always grow, because there will always be more people.

>>12558011
>Is this not the same thing?
no, because it's measured in terms of value, rather than in terms of market prices and wages.
>>12558016
they don't explain why they intersect at the point they do rather than another.
>>12558021
no but the equilibrium price tends to oscillate around a center of gravity.

>>12558014
By having to sell at a loss.
>>12558020
>exchange value is only realized at the moment of exchange, meanwhile the workers have still produced value for you
If exchange value is only realised at exchange, then how is surplus value being appropriated? Exchange value can be anything, yes? Doesn't this mean that surplus value is variable? Why does surplus value only work one way? Thanks.

>>12557894
but... but... that wasn't communism, remember it's only communism when it's good.

>>12558038
>the economy will always grow, because there will always be more people.

even if there aren't more people there will always be more machines, did washing machines make us all poorer by making it so women don't have to labor 8 hours out of the week down at the river scrubbing clothes? no, they freedom up that labor time to do more productive shit, thus growing the economy

>>12558024
>>12558040
>By having to sell at a loss.
this is using "value" in a different sens than it is used in the theory.

>>12558033
the theory doesn't deny this.

>>12558039
>they don't explain why they intersect at the point they do rather than another.
That's exactly what they do. The curves are defined by supply and demand and thus their shape and size. Whatever point they intersect is defined by the curves' nature itself, which in turn is subjective, defined by the wants and needs of the populace, by what they want.
You're making absolutely no sense at all. If you plot two curves, they intersect at whatever point where supply == demand, or whatever your equations are. Seriously, what are you trying to claim here? Go open Wolfram Alpha and type in y = x2, y = 2.
See how they intersect at two points where (x^2 == 2). Are you arguing that the location of their intersection is not defined by the equations themselves?

>>12558054
>theory never accounted for the fact that capitalists take a risk and dont just print money

maybe its ... a dumb theory?

>>12558055
necessarily, anyway.

>>12558054
>this is using "value" in a different sens than it is used in the theory.
Isn't surplus value appropriated as profit?

>>12558059
I don't see how it doesn't account for that. it's just not what determines a commodity's value.
>>12558069
surplus value is the source of profit. but surplus value won't necessarily equal profit.

>>12558069
it must be 'valorized' through the sale of the commodity
>but how do we determine the sale price of our commodity?
uh..well..we--

>>12558040
>Doesn't this mean that surplus value is variable
yes

>Why does surplus value only work one way?
Im not sure why this is, good question. Maybe some other anon can chime in and help you (and me) get a better understanding.

>>12558029
a company incorrectly estimated demand, so they have to correct. what about this situation is inexplicable to neoclassical economists?
>>12558039
>no but the equilibrium price tends to oscillate around a center of gravity.
as long as production costs and demand stay similar, equilibrium prices will stay similar as well. you don't need to introduce "value" to recognize that. and if supply or demand suddenly shift, "value" isn't going to pull equilibrium price back to where it was. so, I still don't see the usefulness of that concept.

>>12558048
i'm not a communist.

>>12558055
yes it does. that's what "unsustainable" means.

>>12558057
you can DETERMINE the equilibrium price by charting out supply and demand; no one's denying that. but supply and demand forces don't explain why the center of gravity upon which they act is at the point it is.

>>12558097
yes it does.

>>12558083
>surplus value is the source of profit.
Which is variable? Why can't it also be the source of loss?

>>12558097
neither does a metaphysical postulate

the labor theory of value is clearly true, there is no cogent argument against the value of an object deriving from the effort required (read: REQUIRED, not 'actually expended') to bring it to market.

attention to all 'muh prices' retards: an object can be worth more than anyone is willing to pay, and the seller might still sell it anyways because he has a liquidity problem.

t. racist fascist drumpfter sspx incel

>>12558114
how valuable is a vhs?

>>12558089
>as long as production costs and demand stay similar, equilibrium prices will stay similar as well. you don't need to introduce "value" to recognize that. and if supply or demand suddenly shift, "value" isn't going to pull equilibrium price back to where it was. so, I still don't see the usefulness of that concept.
the usefulness is to explain why the equilibrium price is at the magnitude it's at rather than another.
>>12558094
>yes it does. that's what "unsustainable" means.
"unsustainable" means that the capitalist doesn't produce equal or more value than the worker?
>>12558100
okay.
>Which is variable? Why can't it also be the source of loss?
the surplus value extracted from workers could be the source of lost profit?
>>12558112
what's the argument

>>12558120
however much it costs for someone to procure a copy of said vhs and bring it to market.

>>12558097
>no one's denying that.
That is precisely what you are denying. The equilibrium point is the point where supply == demand. The point's location is defined by supply and demand through its nature of being their intersection.
Why do you claim to the contrary if you can't even offer any arguments?

>>12558125
no, it's valueless, because no one wants it.

>>12558122
>source of lost profit
negative profit

>>12558122
>>12558094 (You)
>yes it does. that's what "unsustainable" means.
"unsustainable" means that the capitalist doesn't produce equal or more value than the worker?
>>12558100 (You)
okay.
>Which is variable? Why can't it also be the source of loss?
the surplus value extracted from workers could be the source of lost profit?

You're mixing me up with a communist.

>>12558133
I still want the vhs recording of me splitting your mom's cheeks in 1997.

>>12558122
>the usefulness is to explain why the equilibrium price is at the magnitude it's at rather than another.
you're repeating yourself. are you trying to say that supply and demand will always tend to meet somewhere around a price that is in proportion to labor invested?

>>12558152
yeah i just assume all communists are pedophiles.

>>12558153
the price of something is determined by the subjective value of something in comparison to everything else.

>>12558128
again, I'm not denying that one can DETERMINE equilibrium price by charting out supply and demand; that's obvious. I'm saying that supply and demand don't EXPLAIN why they equilibriate at they magnitude they do. they only explain the deviations from that magnitude.
>>12558134
negative profit would just indicate that there isn't a demand that corresponds to the value of the product.
>>12558141
I don't think so.
>>12558153
I'm saying that what determines the center of gravity around which market prices fluctuate is labor-time invested.

>>12558165
>I don't think so.
You're confused. I've been arguing against the commie's "points".

>>12558179
I AM the commie.

>>12558183
yeah and you're confused.

>>12558165
>I'm saying that what determines the center of gravity around which market prices fluctuate is labor-time invested.
What's the evidence for this?

>>12558165
>again, I'm not denying that one can DETERMINE equilibrium price by charting out supply and demand; that's obvious. I'm saying that supply and demand don't EXPLAIN why they equilibriate at they magnitude they do. they only explain the deviations from that magnitude.
dude.
no.
i have 20 apples.
i go to the market to sell these apples.
there are three people at the market looking to buy apples.
person one purchases 5 apples. person two purchases 9. person three purchases 6. they got all the apples they wanted, and no one else at the market wanted any apples.
here the supply of apples met the demand for them. i.e. supply [equaled] demand.
nothing extraneous to this situation is needed to explain the equilibrium.

>>12558165
>negative profit would just indicate that there isn't a demand that corresponds to the value of the product.
Then positive profit would indicate that there is a demand that corresponds to the value of the product. It's just the opposite. Positive vs negative surplus value.
>value of the product.
What is the value of a product? If selling at a profit means surplus value is being appropriated, then selling at cost would would mean no surplus value is being appropriated, and selling at a loss would mean there is deficit value being appropriated. Is cost the value of a product? I don't understand how surplus value works in a market economy.

>>12558165
>. I'm saying that supply and demand don't EXPLAIN why they equilibriate at they magnitude they do. they only explain the deviations from that magnitude.
That is EXACTLY what they do. The shape of the curves defines where they intersect. The shape of the curves is defined by supply and demand.
>they only explain deviations from that magnitude.
And the magnitude itself, since the intersection of two curves is defined by the curves themselves as the point where y_1 = y_2. It is the point where the supply of the producers equals the demand of the consumers.
The curves do not begin at the equilibrium point. They are in no way defined by it. It is not a center of gravity, it is the point where production and business is efficient because they're matching what people want to buy and likewise the people have the products available. It's natural that in a competitive economy this point will be sought out to maximize business.
You are putting the cart before the horse.

>>12558184
it's possible. I'm talking to like 4 people at once so forgive me.
>>12558188
empirical confirmation of the predictions generated by the theory.
>>12558191
that doesn't explain the PRICE at equilibrium.

>>12558206
the idea is that two products with the same supply and demand curves can have different equilibrium prices.

>>12558209
the price was 20 cents per apple
that was what all three people at the market were willing to pay for all the apples they wanted that day
this is achieved basically never in real life, but there you have it
equilibrium price is just that point at which supply and demand meet. it's basically a fortuitous event. until then, price fluctuates around it. there's nothing magical (like a metaphysical category 'surplus value' or 'socially necessary labor time' or whatever) to explain what is happening.

>>12558222
they aren't the same curves if they are different variables, what are you talking about

>>12558224
plug in all the variables of your first example, then change the commodity from an apple to a bicycle.
>>12558229
the supply and demand curves for a loaf of bread and a television could be the same.

>>12558222
That is not possible. If they have the same exact curves their point of intersection will be the same and thus their equilibrium point and price likewise. If the price is different, you either have different curves or a different coordinate system.

>>12558250
>the supply and demand curves for a loaf of bread and a television could be the same.
Yes, but when you chart them onto a price-quantity chart the charts are no longer the same, likewise if you calculate them considering price-quantity, then they will no longer share the same values. Equilibrium price is not simply a question of supply and demand, but also of the price the product or service is valued at by the consumer at different supply-demand quantities.

>>12558277
>Yes, but when you chart them onto a price-quantity chart the charts are no longer the same
so it's possible for two products to have the same supply and demand curves but different equilibrium prices.

>>12558339
>>12558277
cant be bothered to read but one of you is retarded. two curves with the same shape arent necessarily the same curve. it depends on scale. equilibrium pricing also has absolutely nothing to do with the LTV.

>>12558209
>it's possible. I'm talking to like 4 people at once so forgive me.

You're not forgiven. you want me dead. FUCK YOU YOU PIECE OF GARBAGE

>>12558362
>equilibrium pricing also has absolutely nothing to do with the LTV.
value is postulated as an explanans for equilibrium prices, so no.

>>12558371
i don't want anyone dead. big fan of life

>>12558401
lmfao... equilibrium price is entirely dependent on a marginal consumer. it has no plausible connection to value.

>>12558409
take it up with Marx.
>"Nothing is easier to understand than the disproportion between demand and supply, and the consequent divergences of market prices from market values... If demand and supply coincide, they cease to have any effect, and it is for this very reason that commodities are sold at their market value... If demand and supply cancel one another out, they cease to explain anything, have no effect on market value..."

>>12557788
>stealing from robbers

>>12558418
marx is not the final authority on this and that sentence is nonsense
equalities do not cancel their terms what the fuck does that even MEAN

>>12558404

incorrect. communism is the religion of envy. you won't be able to dispossess people without murdering them.

>>12558425
marx is purposely vague and retarded. ie "you only think it's wrong because you don't understand it"

>>12558425
I'm just disputing your claim that the LTV has nothing to do with equilibrium prices.

>>12558428
I sure would like to

>>12558437
but it doesn't, for all the reasons already given you
'because marx said so' is not a defense

>>12558440
well Marx thought it did. are you saying that other versions of the LTV have nothing to do with equilibrium prices? or that Marx was wrong in thinking his own theory had anything to do with equilibrium prices?

>>12558418
in that passage he very clearly states that market price is not market value, even if they happen to coincide at equilibrium. at root, the only useful denominator with which to valuate an object is 'socially useful hours of labor'

>>12558439
yes i know you want to murder people.

>>12558455
right, Marx's idea is that value (as determined by SNLT) will coincide with equilibrium prices under certain conditions.

>>12558460
I hate murder. bums me out

>>12558449
marx was wrong about the relevance of ltv (any ltv) in explaining price at market equilibrium, for all the reasons already given

>>12558503
oh you're just saying that Marx is wrong to think the LTV explains equilibrium prices, not that the theory doesn't attempt to explain them.

>>12558467
all kinds of things coincide with other things under certain conditions with their being no necessary relation between them
me and my neighbor walk outside to our cars at exactly the same time every single weekday morning
we do not work in the same office, nor do we share anything about our lives beyond the our street and property line
there's a coincidence of things (two men leaving two houses) under certain conditions (morning, weekdays)
if you say capitalism is the missing term i'm going to piss in your fucking eye

>>12558509
i never said otherwise

>>12558516
you said that the LTV has "absolutely nothing" to do with equilibrium prices. I read that as you saying that the theory didn't purport to explain them. carry on

>>12558479
you wouldn't be a communist if you didn't envy people and want to kill them.

>>12557724
implying western countries manufacture anything anymore marxism is outdated

I know nothing about marxism or politics in general, I just hate rich people and want everyone to have a house and free education/healthcare, does Marx agree with me

>>12557724
LTV doesn't take into account things like interest rate or alternative cost, so it's a pretty retarded theory.

>>12558595
You’re a socdem.
>>12558617
It’s not a theory of those types. Interest rates spring from loans which are not a freely reproducible commodity measured in unskilled labor time but are a service, which the LTV explains the average price of.
if value is subjective explain the water/diamond paradox without using supply and demand

>>12559836
*avergae price of freely reproducible commodities, it doesn’t attempt to explain services

>>12559836
*explains average price of freely reproducible commodities (because monopolized commodities do not have equilibrium prices) not services

>>12558515
It’s not a coincidence if it’s hypothesized and then supported by data. I swear arguments against the LTV get worse and worse as time goes on
http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/DZ_article1.pdf

>>12559836
this fucking kid is still trying to defend the ltv haha "its not that type of theory man" sounds like "what do u mean god doesnt exist? god is love! checkmate athiests!"

>>12559874
This isn’t a criticism of the theory though is it? Do you think the LTV is wrong because it can’t give an explanation for every facet of the market? You must not believe in gravity then, since gravitity doesn’t explain everything in physics.

>>12559883
ltv can't explain ANYTHING its fucking stupid, literally no one in an economics department believes that shit, the only people still clinging to it are english professors with no background in econ

REMINDER THAT

Marx literally convinces the proles that they need to live through capitalism because it's "necessary" due to "iron-laws" and that if they want to reform (ie. to live a decent life while they're alive) they're selfish bourgeois hypocrites and they ought to sacrifice their own lives for the future generations that will definitely get communism.

tl;dr Marx wants you to work against your own benefit. It's pure ideology.

>retards admit if they stop strawmanning marx the LTV can’t be debunked
pure pottery.

>>12559898
>tl;dr Marx wants you to work against your own benefit. It's pure ideology.

thank you, marxism is so fucking dumb on so many levels, if it wasn't made the state religion of post-coup russia it would have already been forgotten long ago

>>12559899
>can't debunk the ltv!
>every time it gets debunked
>"no no its not that kind of theory"

can't prove god doesn't exist!

>>12559898
marx believed capitalism collapses into socialism. socialism isn’t a substitute for capitalism, it’s the next step in the development of the modes of production
>>12559897
pic related
>>12559914
http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/DZ_article1.pdf
there is data for the ltv unlike god
stay buttmad faggot

>>12559897
Also there are plenty of economists that subscribe to the ltv, most famously cockshot and wolff
>inb4 but those aren’t REAL economists!!1

>>12559926
>marx believed capitalism collapses into socialism. socialism isn’t a substitute for capitalism, it’s the next step in the development of the modes of production

Yes but in all likelihood it won't occur in your lifetime. Meaning the proles who suffer do so for future generations (big if true). And they should accept this, as reformism only delays the collapse of capitalism.

I don't see how this is any different from the Marxist critique of ideology. Why should a prole decide that the right thing to do is deny himself any comfort in this life? That's ideology AT ITS PUREST.

>>12559983
>Yes but in all likelihood it won't occur in your lifetime. Meaning the proles who suffer do so for future generations (big if true). And they should accept this, as reformism only delays the collapse of capitalism.
Yeah but we can’t just go accelerationist and destroy the welfare state in the first world. Those concessions have to run their course and then eventually the capitalists will no longer be able to give concessions. besides there was a revolution in my lifetime, the naxalites in india.
>I don't see how this is any different from the Marxist critique of ideology. Why should a prole decide that the right thing to do is deny himself any comfort in this life? That's ideology AT ITS PUREST.
And third world workers see lots of comfort in making gucci shoes they’ll never ever be able to wear? this is isolation 101. It’s also why lenin created the vanguard party, to push proles into revolution by education

>>12559926
>there is data for the ltv unlike god
>stay buttmad faggot

wrong.

>http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm

>>12560006
That’s nice and all, but it looks like you like every other person who blindly strawmans the LTV are all outta arguments. Sad!

>>12559931
>Richard Wolff

yeah i saw him speak at some socialist conference in the 2000s, he said he literally had it written into his tenure contract at umass that he has to be a marxist economist, which probably seemed like a cool idea in 1970 or whatever, but now the poor bastard is trapped doing silly marxist analysis for the rest of this life, talk about hoisted on your own petard

>>12560022
>guy posts lame paper from no name european professor

see ltv is real!

ok explain that paper in your own words

>>12560022
>desperately clinging to marxism as a cope for being a loser this much

dude just get over it

>>12560024
>hard data
vs
>he said
>ignores cockshot
I don’t even like wolff, he’s a succdem. Cockshot is good though.
I almost, ALMOST pity you.
>>12560034
>too retarded to read a paper
color me surprised. The paper showed correlation between equilibrium prices and the average amount of unskilled labor time needed to create them.
>>12560043
not an argument
seriously someone explain the water/diamond paradox without supply and demand please lol

I think this video is a good summary of these threads
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dMR_wIqtmQs

>>12560053
>The paper showed correlation between equilibrium prices and the average amount of unskilled labor time needed to create them.

how did it show that?

>>12560108
Perhaps reading the paper will reveal how. But i get it, when you run on ideology hard data against your claims is blinding

>>12560116
don't understand your own paper, eh? tee hee

yet another thread annihilated. Is the right really this inept? I could do this all day

>>12560132
couldn't explain that stupid paper heh? maybe you should stop accepting marxism on faith like a retard

I feel like im too harsh on R*GhToids. Should I make a LTB picture book for them instead of scary research papers?

>>12560147
>he didn't actually expect anyone to read a paper with spooky matrix algebra

the jig is up retard

This thread is pretty much a testament to discussions on the LTV: Strawmans getting destroyed

>>12560162
the labor theory of value is meaningless... wow you can find the cost of labor somewhere in the price of stuff! wow, that's really unexpected. I guess that justifies centralized control of the economy and killing millions of people! since labor won't cost anything after everyone is enslaved by a despotic state

>>12560172
the LTV makes about 12 predictions about capitalism. whether they’re right or wrong is your obligation to prove.

>>12560179
>my obligation to prove

haha my sides needed a workout

>>12559994
>And third world workers see lots of comfort in making gucci shoes they’ll never ever be able to wear? this is isolation 101. It’s also why lenin created the vanguard party, to push proles into revolution by education

No it's not. I'm arguing against proles thinking their only path is to continue to live through capitalism. Marxist socialism is not the only viable socialism and to think so is to be a useful idiot for capitalism.

And Lenin created a vanguard party explicitly against Marx's notion that the emancipation of the proletariat is the task of the proletariat itself. Lenin drove a Rolls-Royce.

The fact is Marxism wants the proles to continue to experience capitalism. Marxism thinks we don't have enough technology for communism. As if we need more ipads before the proles can rise up. And btw capitalism actually supresses technology. The idea that capitalism dialectically must be lived to its fullest is bullshit and ideology that harms the worker.

>>12560053
Cockshot isn't good. He's another meme theorist, almost as bad as Zizek.

>>12560071
Stalin wasn't even Marxist. All he did was come up with a type of Russian fascism that resembles more National Bolshevism than orthodox Marxism and Marxist-Leninism. Oswals Spengler was the only guy, on the right or the left, smart enough to figure that Stalin would end up going against Marxism.

>>12560306
Zizek is a philosopher. Cockshot is an economist.
>Stalin wasn't even Marxist. All he did was come up with a type of Russian fascism that resembles more National Bolshevism than orthodox Marxism and Marxist-Leninism. Oswals Spengler was the only guy, on the right or the left, smart enough to figure that Stalin would end up going against Marxism.
how so
>>12560291
>No it's not. I'm arguing against proles thinking their only path is to continue to live through capitalism. Marxist socialism is not the only viable socialism and to think so is to be a useful idiot for capitalism.
Marxist socialism is the only successful socialism unless you want to identity as a Rose-Pierreist
>And Lenin created a vanguard party explicitly against Marx's notion that the emancipation of the proletariat is the task of the proletariat itself. Lenin drove a Rolls-Royce.
The vangaurd was made up of proles and peasants.
>The fact is Marxism wants the proles to continue to experience capitalism.
Quote from marx that says that?
Marxism thinks we don't have enough technology for communism.
Communism can’t be reached without eliminating imperialism and establishing world wide socialism

You all need to shut the fuck up about the LTV

From Lukács' What is Orthodox Marxism?

>Orthodox Marxism, therefore, does not imply the uncritical acceptance of the results of Marx’s investigations. It is not the ‘belief’ in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a ‘sacred’ book. On the contrary, orthodoxy refers exclusively to method. It is the scientific conviction that dialectical materialism is the road to truth and that its methods can be developed, expanded and deepened only along the lines laid down by its founders.

>Let us assume for the sake of argument that recent research had disproved once and for all every one of Marx’s individual theses. Even if this were to be proved, every serious ‘orthodox’ Marxist would still be able to accept all such modern findings without reservation and hence dismiss all of Marx’s theses in toto – without having to renounce his orthodoxy for a single moment.

>>12560376
Too bad no Marxists today give a shit about Lukacs and most are opposed to him. They can't think dialectically about Marx so they cuck themselves with dogmatic thinking that helps no one but tenured academics.

>>12560332
Cockshot is still a meme. He's another theorist who ought to stfu.

How so? Read Spengler. He predicted that Russia would end up finding Marxism too foreign and retreat from it. Stalin did exactly this.

> Marxist socialism is the only successful socialism

No it's not. Vanguard Leninism just replaced Czarism. And as I said, Stalinism retained Marxism in name only in order to not provoke too much of a revolt. The "successes" of Marxism has been to instate reforms and a safety net. Exactly what ends up making Marx's predictions wrong, because working conditions of the proles actually improved rather than worsened. Now I don't ignore the third-world, or even condone first-world proletarian working conditions. But Marxism pushed Tory parties to initiate reforms to abate proletarian rage. It's a success, but not in terms of the Marxist narrative.

> The vangaurd was made up of proles and peasants.

Don't be dishonest.

> Quote from marx that says that?

The fact that the revolution doesn't occur this very second means the proles need to deal with it and continue to experience capitalism. The idea that we don't in CURRENT YEAR have enough technology for communism is a delusion. Like I said:
1. Capitalism actively suppresses technological innovations (think planned obsolescence, buying patents for new tech and then having them sit on the shelf forever so they don't hurt profits of your currently owned tech)
2. Liberal progressive delusion of thinking technology will solve our problems and that the proles can't live a decent communal life in charge of the mode of production without more gadgets (you're an idiot if you believe this unironically).

The conclusion is that we continue to live through capitalism because we think Marxism is the only alternative, an alternative that continues to tell us we don't have it that bad (or else capitalism would implode). It's almost exactly what the capitalists tell us.

Reminder that Marxists see the fact that Marxist theory being taught at all the elite neo-liberal universities is actually a sign that capitalism is imploding rather than a sign of the complete impotence of Marxist theory against capitalism.

>>12560477
>Too bad no Marxists today give a shit about Lukacs and most are opposed to him. They can't think dialectically about Marx so they cuck themselves with dogmatic thinking that helps no one but tenured academics.
I guess you forgot about Lenin and Mao who led peasants in feudal shitholes instead of proles in the most industrialized countries like marx predicted
>>12560477
>Cockshot is still a meme. He's another theorist who ought to stfu.
worse-than-reddit-response
>He predicted that Russia would end up finding Marxism too foreign and retreat from it. Stalin did exactly this.
Yeah stalin did so by nationalizing and introducing the first five year plan after the NEP. Not marxist at all eh.
>Vanguard Leninism just replaced Czarism.
So an aristocracy in feudalism is the same as a movement of peasants? Really? you’re going to claim that?
>Stalinism retained Marxism in name only in order to not provoke too much of a revolt.
t. leftcom
>The "successes" of Marxism has been to instate reforms and a safety net. Exactly what ends up making Marx's predictions wrong, because working conditions of the proles actually improved rather than worsened. Now I don't ignore the third-world, or even condone first-world proletarian working conditions. But Marxism pushed Tory parties to initiate reforms to abate proletarian rage. It's a success, but not in terms of the Marxist narrative.
During Marx’s time these safetynets weren’t predicted. However the initial dialectic is still strong, even succdems and radlibs are gaining class consciousness.
>Don’t be dishonest
yeah I remember when the vanguard party took all the wealth for themselves and didn’t distribute it-
Oh wait
>The fact that the revolution doesn't occur this very second means the proles need to deal with it and continue to experience capitalism. The idea that we don't in CURRENT YEAR have enough technology for communism is a delusion.
Did you even read my post? There aren’t socialist revolutions in the first world because the material conditions haven’t been met. there have been though, in the third world, where material conditios are fit for revolution. See the naxalites.
You’re arguing for accelerationism, capitalism cannot simply collapse this very second because the material conditions for revolution are still developing. Do you perhaps read Bordiga?

Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no!

Its over bros, intellectuals have lost their credibility. The masses won't listen to anyone but successful businessmen like Bezos and Gates. This is coming from a commie, but we stand no chance in the cultural wars unless we radically change our praxis. The masses don't want to listen to 1 hour lectures on the theory of alienation or commodity fetishism.

>>12560570
Honestly I was thinking that. When I was a default liberal I simply hated communism but after so much reading I realize that marxist thought has simply gotten too complex for the average person
>>12560564
Did lenin own the means of production?

>>12560561
Most of your responses just repeat the same claim and don't honestly address my critiques. Bolsheviks were not peasantry. Vanguardism is not proletarian. Stalin, despite overlapping with tenets of Marxism, did as much if not more that was anti-Marxist. It's like saying since NazBol or Gentile's interpretation of Hegel overlaps with Marxism, then it's Marxism.

Compare the homes the vanguard elite lived in with the commie blocks of the proletariat.

> Did you even read my post? There aren’t socialist revolutions in the first world because the material conditions haven’t been met.

Yes, which means workers in France need to suck it up and continue to experience.

You're also overrating the importance of the third-world. You think the conditions are ripe in India, but Modi just stole all of your gold and has everyone on a retina-scanned database. Just when can I expect this Marxist revolution in India? Weeks? Months? Decades? Centuries?

> You’re arguing for accelerationism,

I'm arguing for the here and now. For me to concede my life working in poverty for the vague notion that others in the future will have it better is ideology. The only thing stopping a revolution from taking place today is Marxist ideology, not the material conditions. Get this through your head. We have the technology, but not the will. To say otherwise is to be a bugman.

I don't like Bordiga but I recognize that he's the honest conclusion of the Marxist thought. Marx tells us that capitalism is destined to collapse. So we just wait it out and do nothing because it's bound to happen. This is what a real Marxist should do, but I'm not a real Marxist. I don't believe capitalism is destined to collapse. I don't want myself, my family, my friends, and my neighbourhood to live in poverty because some bourgeois academics without an ounce of real class-consciousness tell me that the time isn't right and I'm a petty-bourgeois for thinking otherwise.

>>12560570
>>12560580
Marxism has never been close to the proletariat. It's an ideology that requires post-secondary education. Marxism doesn't exist outside of tenured academics who make over 100k and campus undergrads who will quit LARPing as Marxists once they graduate.

>>12560656
so?

There's no discussion to be had with strawmen. The recurrent reality of the LTV is practically demonstrated.

>>12560675
It's ideology imposed on the proletariat against their own best interests.

>>12560743
nuh uh

2 threads in you'd think we'd at least gotten around to a justification for the existence of "value", so we could move on to Böhm-Bawerk, the calculation problem, the transformation problem, and all the other classic assblasting of Marxists. Step it up, proles.

>>12560801
What do you mean justification for the existicance of value? Nobody justifies gravity. If you mean evidence, that’s already a given. See above.

>>12559836
Interest rates spring from risk, not loans.

>>12560801
>>12560376

>>12560942
Oh yeah I risked shitting my pants yesterday when I ate indian food I guess there was a very high profit / interest rate in that right frog poster

>>12560376
>Marxism is not exegetical
>Here is some exegesis about dialectical materialism
>JK it's hermeneutics, that's totally different

>>12561415
based kolakowski

writes the most comprehensive book on marxism and he doesn't even like marxism

>>12561425
IIRC he was a "Marxist humanist," which makes his contempt for his peers even more hilarious.

>>12561435
he abandoned marxism though

The refutation for Marxist intrinsicism has been sufficient ITT, but if anyone wants some memes, this guy wrote an Aristotelian/Randian critique of the LTV. http://cogitoergolibero.blogspot.com/2019/01/an-aristotelian-critique-of-marxist.html?m=1