/lit/ - Literature

>>17361460
2)There's no inflation from the same money going to different hands. Instead of going to the owner of the means of production it would go to the workers. There's still the same money in the economy circulating.

>>17361489
that still doesn´t cover it, because even if there isnt more money circulating in the economy, the average person will consume much more than a capital owner (since this tends to accumulate the money instead of spending it), if everyone is consuming more and getting more money the price of everything will skyrocket

>>17361502
after which production will grow to a level that can support that under the old price

>>17361502
Yeah but that means there's a higher monetary velocity which is a good thing for an economy that makes it more robust. Say there's x number of extra dollars in one instance with the owners and the same x in the hands of the workers. The owners will spend more sparingly on ultra luxury goods or other investments that can meet market demand for some good. The first case is a benefit to a small market sector, while the second is good if there are too many workers and not enough jobs as both the underemployed and the owners benefit.

If the workers get and spend the money there will be more demand amongst the working class to produce things of value. If they have their priorities straight this will increase the material wealth and living conditions of the working class. More demand amongst workers with the means to meet the demand is a good arrangement for a healthy economy.

>>17361460
You are a pleb.

What a retard take.

>>17361460
2) You're obviously confused a hyper-redistributive form of social-democracy with total dirigisme.

For better or for worse (I would say worse) a Socialist government would aim to boost production in specific industries. Cash money doesn't come into large-scale investment or financial speculation.
In this situation, money would only be used to buy food and luxury items. The bulk of the economy would exist orthogonal to groceries etc.

>>17361460
>1) Why should plebs even deserve 100% of the value of their labour?

bingo.
congrats you demolished communism.

>>17361684
unironically true

the fantasy of the hedonists is that hedonists will hug each other once all their desires are met.
This is why marxism is materialism, ie reducing everything to material conditions and money, and why they push for more and more cheap goods.

hedonists get acclimated to their current situation, but they need more and more pleasures and less and less hardship to feel happy, otherwise they get depressed.

This is why atheists (who are hedonists) confuse happiness with having free stuff, free goods and services.
According to marxists, people are happy only they have the material conditions for it.

Liberals define freedom and happiness with an opulence of goods, an orgy of sense pleasures and they call this progress.

Okay, but since hedonists need bigger and bigger breakthrough to ease their life, they get depressed when those breakthroughs do not happen, like it has been the case since the 80s.
They freak out when there is a recession and they whine that progress stagnates.

For 2 centuries atheists could hype their human rights has progress and the right side of history, because human rights is just giving people more and more of an easy life.
However it is never enough.

>>17361746
this is a really retarded take

Also you seem like an Evola fag

>>17361746
>the fantasy of the hedonists is that hedonists will hug each other once all their desires are met.
"everyone i dont like (understand) is a hedonist
>This is why marxism is materialism, ie reducing everything to material conditions and money, and why they push for more and more cheap goods.
wrong
>This is why atheists (who are hedonists) confuse happiness with having free stuff, free goods and services.
wrong
>According to marxists, people are happy only they have the material conditions for it.
wrong
>Liberals define freedom and happiness with an opulence of goods, an orgy of sense pleasures and they call this progress.
sweeping generalization

the absolute state of this board, why do none of you actually read

>Why should plebs even deserve 100% of the value of their labour?

Marx never promised this

>If everyone is being paid way more

Marx never promised this.

>>17361834
>>If everyone is being paid way more
>Marx never promised this.

yes he did wtf are you talking about lmao

>>17361460
Marx is arguing that the goal is to abolish the system of generalized commodity production, the idea that 'labour is entitled to all it creates' is the position of the Ricardian socialist.

That said, if wages rise, either by the force of organized labour extracting demands on capital, or through the force of law, prices will rise, but not more that the wages rise. The bigger effect is that it squeezes the portion of the pie the wealthiest people have.

See Marx's Value, Price, and Profit, where he is directly debating somebody who is making exactly the argument you are making. We have the good fortune of having had somebody directly ask Marx "if we succeed in getting higher wages, won't they just raise prices to cancel out our gains?" Here what Marx himself had to say to that challenge:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch01.htm#c0

>>17361871
>the idea that 'labour is entitled to all it creates' is the position of the Ricardian socialist.
More like Retardian socialist

>>17361460
1/Why should owners of the means of production deserve surplus value, especially when doing nothing (think about the rich old american pensionners, living off their high end pension fund, doing nothing, also, rich shareholders).
2/ Lower stage communism (Critique of the Gotha program), is not about being paid more, it's about receiving the same amount of consumption as you have worked.

>>17361460
1) That's not really a position Marx takes. Proudhon was the one who claimed people could get their full value provided returned within a market economy. Marx thought value as a means of regulating things couldn't work and would become illogical e.g. the marginal cost of all digital goods is obviously noting so the price (and profit possible) should be quickly driven down to zero but capitalist America is really against letting that happen and lets prices be set and enforced.
Marx doesn't have any good explanation of how things would be rationed and managed though. Some people would take more than they give and others would take less naturally.

2) Paid more in what? IOUs? I don't think Marx was a fan of money. People can't be "paid more" in real goods obviously derp... "inflation" in a non-monetized economy doesn't mean anything

>>17361892
Got em.

>>17361460
>he thinks Marx is proposing a new monetary system
jesus christ

>>17361460
maybe read Marx before saying stupid shit, holy fuck the state of /lit/

>>17363608
>I don't think Marx was a fan of money.
Marx was for the abolition of money. It's pretty clear.

>>17364045
>It's pretty clear.
Is it?

in the alternate reality

If everyone owned housing inflation wouldnt be as relevant.
Also i dont know if thered be inflation if everyone used labor vouchers that are destroyed upon use.
Nobody has made that calculation though as far as i can tell.

>>17361460
>if I make more money ill end up in a higher tax bracket
>therefore I shouldn't try to make more money
Mongoloid take

>>17361460
>Why should plebs even deserve 100% of the value of their labour?
This is the question that bourgeoisie asks not the proletariat. The plebs ask should we take by force what we think we each deserve? There are way more workers than owners.
> If everyone is being paid way more, won´t that just make inflation fly through the roof?
No

>>17361460
Marxian economics is so fucking braindead that it isnt even worth discussing at this point.

>>17361460
>1) Why should plebs even deserve 100% of the value of their labour?
Communists can't answer this. No matter how much they say "Marx wasn't an egalitarian" they can't deny communism is just another secular humanist doctrine of progress and equality. There's a reason Marxist humanism was the most popular iteration of Marxism in the West.

>>17361460
>1) Why should plebs even deserve 100% of the value of their labour?
THEIR labour, here's a clue for ya

>>17367689
Without the bourgeois how do they monetise breaking rocks with bigger rocks all day? Where do they get their rock breaking machines?

>>17367689
I don't get it. Labor is always a means to an end for the collective benefit of society. You give your labor away in order to live and to help others live. Why do you think people deserve the value of their labor if it's never for them in the first place?

>>17367710
you stop making rock breaking machines altogether and just use them and fix them if they break.Maybe.

>>17361866
Marx promised that everyone would be paid way more?

That's economically impossible and he never said that dipshit.

>>17367763
well yeah he did promise that, why else would he talk about poverty in 19th century england so much.

>>17361460
can a marxist please quantify surplus value for me?

it's actually very easy to see how much your income is taxed by government actors, and the breakdown of where that money goes in your country

but by comparison, despite all the screeching about the injustice of it all, i've never seen someone soberly describe how i am supposed to measure the surplus value being stolen from me by my employer

why should my political energy go toward a revolutionary agenda like seizing the means of production rather than an evolutionary agenda like shifting the tax base away from taxing income on labour, and toward something more progressive like land or wealth in general?

>>17367820
here is a link with the formula
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch18.htm
Its surplus value/variable capital
Dont ask me what that means

>>17367850
somewhat helpful thanks

>>17361460
1) No one deserves anything.

>>17367883
if nobody deserves anything then neither do the capitalists.

>>17367889
Indeed, you don't deserve things, you go get and keep them and try to keep them to yourself or give them to someone or something else, but inherently you don't deserve things

>>17367356
Literally this. Everything that needed to be said about Marx's take on economics was said back in the time of the marginal revolution. Everyone who stilll clings to his shitty takes is an ideologue who worships a prophet of a dead religion.

>>17367689
>THEIR labour
And?

>>17361460
1) why should plebs who literally do 0 work, get most of the profit?
Warren Buffett worked as a clerk in his grandpa's grocery store, and he said he learned that he didnt like hard work. Most rich people say the trick is to get money to work for you, not work for money. They are lazy cunts and idolization of them is bordering propaganda.

2)
An economy built on consumption rather than production would be less volatile, and less prone to inflation due to speculation. It would be more sustainable environmentally, and wouldnt increase inequality.

>>17361746
Peak pseudery. Very epic "hedonists hurr durr" argument.
Next time you type, ask yourself if you would ever say this out loud as an argument in a debate. If not, then its a retarded take.

>>17361460
Read Value, Price and Profit.

Their argument the workers will revolt because they are being unjustly exploited. Regardless if they deserve it or not, the mechanisms of capitalism will lead to workers trying to emancipate themselves

You know ive been reading karl marx and i still cant help but feel like hes completely neglecting demand.
Like what about the risk capitalists take whenever they launch a new product?
What about competition from smaller firms and their willingness to take on more risk?
Can somebody elaborate on that?
Like i hate to use the old hole analogy but is true.
You could pay somebody to dig a hole but that doesnt make it valuable.

>>17361519
Fake and gay

>>17369115
based and boomerpilled

>>17369115
>Like what about the risk capitalists take whenever they launch a new product?
if a new product fails, worst case scenario the firm goes bankrupt. the CEOs etc. file for bankruptcy, lose some money, but almost always have capital to fall back on, otherwise they wouldnt have been able to launch a new product in the first place
all the workers will get laid off and might end up homeless as a result because the job market is so fucked
>What about competition from smaller firms and their willingness to take on more risk?
smaller firms are almost never competition for big ones. the free market creates winners and those winners become monopolies. (or like 5 firms dominate a market and agree to not sabotage each other too much)

the workers arent just getting additional money. they become the shareholders so they're just getting that money

>>17369115

These things basically just work themselves out in the way you'd expect
For big firms mitigating risk is everything they simply don't take significant risks
If a big firm goes under it's not due to any sudden event like a big risk or some little start up they just get whittled down over a lengthy period of poor performance you just see the straw that breaks the camel's back
Small firms can take on risks early because they basically have to but in order to grow they have to stop doing so very soon at which point they either settle into whatever tiny unexploited niche they can or get crushed by the larger firms
Basically these smaller firms are never truly competition for the big ones

>>17361460
The end scenario is the abolition of labor, both of these queries are irrelevant and the mature Marx never prescribes any particular course of action.