/lit/ - Literature

>>17377998
How about reading him? you lazy cunt

Use a Marx Dictionary. It's all there

>>17377998
Read the Communist Manifesto.

>>17377998
Just read some selected parts like the intro do grundrisse - he isn't that hard

>>17378018
Do not read this if you want to understand Marx. It’s a small pamphlet that was dumbed down to be read by semi-literate proles in the 19nth century. It contains almost no political philosophy and mostly applies to issues that only existed at the time it was written. The only reason it’s still remembered is because of it’s memorable title.

>>17377998
Here you go fren

>Blah blah blah I don’t wanna get a job blah blah blah fuck you mom I’m not getting a job blah blah blah
This, but stretched out to 2,000 pages

>>17378063
Communists aren't against hard work. We are against a system that exploits workers. We believe that Capitalism makes work meaningless. Shit, I'm a Communist and I work all fucking day to pay for college.

>>17378057
Though I would also keep in mind Marx doesn't explicitly mention socially necessary labor time, and important part of the LTV, so you should read Value, Price and Profit instead.

>>17378076
Communism is a out worker-abolition not worker-affirmation.
t. Communist

>>17378133
Get outta here Bob Black, tfu tfu

go2wikipedia

>>17378076
Communism is about worker-abolition not worker-affirmation.
t. Communist
>>17378078
Marx does not have a labor theory of value. Debates around the "ltv" are pointless and irrelevant. Most "Marxists" seem more Ricardian if anything.

>>17377998
Early Marx: Turn Hegel upside down, alienation of man
Later Marx: Describe history through dialectical materialism, Critique Capitalism as an inherently paradoxical system that will collapse and then we we will be one step closer on the historical ladder, that leads to communism

>>17378154
Get out of here Bob Black, tfu tfu

>>17378057
>>17378078
I've started the "Marx - Engels reader" second edition. Is it any good? Is it worth going all the way through and getting selected texts from all of marxism?

>>17378161
Marx's critique of capitalism is historically specific

>>17378195
Yes, but as another step in the progress of history to communism, no?

>>17378169
>Is it any good?
Great in fact, go through it. It paces through Marx at a good speed and in a comprehensible order. If you wish to get the primary texts afterwards, I would recommend going in the order of the chart I posted (while keeping in mind that socially necessary labor time isn't mentioned, but is important to the LTV).

>>17378206
No

>>17378223
>while keeping in mind that socially necessary labor time isn't mentioned IN THE BOOK WAGE LABOR AND CAPITAL , but is important to the LTV)*
Can't believe I forgot to mention the book I was warning you about twice.

>>17378206
ironic that they depend on capitalism

>>17378231
Okay, explain his critique then.

>>17378236
Thank you, I will read through it and maybe engage with the primary texts if I want to read more.

>>17377998
>be jew (fat jew)
>rich kid
>daddy lets me dance around the library for too long
The end

>>17378241
Think of a child learning to walk. They must learn to lay on their tummy first, then they crawl and then they stand up while holding something.
But if a child never progresses through the stage of crawling it will be crippled.
Thats the state of capitalism we're in now.

>>17378291
Good luck anon, and enjoy the way though Marx's theories.

>>17378305
Thank you, I have been a pseud spouting marxist theory for too long, without reading the source material.

>>17377998
it's all jewish abstractions and marxist predictions have accordingly amounted to nil

>>17378367
Everyone starts out as an overly confident pseud, it's part of the learning process. That's something the education system doesn't cultivate properly imo, that's why so many people are out there with such fragile egos in relation to their intelligence.

Sowell's Marxism. Very succinct with actual quotes of Marx, Engels, and whoever else was involved or inspired them.

Reading that, alone, will put you further ahead than most people who claim to even be Marxist.

>>17378436
>Sowell
Go be a retard some where else.

>>17378057
>the book you autistically tell everyone they have to read before ever arguing with you about your ideology is litteraly the last one of the list.
Worse than Scientology, kek.

>>17378534
No one is telling you to read Capital unless you claim to have already without understanding Marx, in which case that makes sense. Otherwise, everyone always says not to jump into Capital. But sure bro whatever lets you sleep at night.

>>17378420
Fully agreed

>>17377998
Bourgeoisie creation by pseuds who were riddled by some need to save the working class, effectively trying to play Jesus Christ, theory formulated so the pseuds can still do jackshit and sit on their asses while people work. Now supported by middle class, always middle class college educated self loathing pseuds with fake aspirations to help lower social class (only front, they don't care irl), these people are usually from the west, so America etc. They idolize the communism of 20th century because they read 10 articles about it. They falsely think that people in Eastern Europe want it back, they are wrong and very stupid.

>>17378774
this. also, it's a genius creation tapping into insecure bougie psychoses

Workers, who have nothing to sell but their labor, are oppressed because they generate more value for their bosses than they get paid so that there can be profits for the capitalists.

All of history is class struggle that follows a Hegelian dialectic wherein an oppressed class overthrows those oppressing it. And with the proletariat overthrowing capitalism it would be the final one and abolish class entirely

>>17380404
>t. middle class uni student trying to have a career in academia

>>17380404
>it would be the final one and abolish class entirely
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

>>17380404
>And with the proletariat overthrowing capitalism it would be the final one and abolish class entirely

>>17380404
>they generate more value for their bosses than they get paid
The union of worker + other company members + capital generates the value, not just the worker. the worker on their own can't generate that value, if they could they would just do that and sell the product themselves.

>>17378057
Once again an "intro" chart made by a guy who haven't even read quarter of the books on there as an attempt to make himself and his ideology seem sophisticated and impenetrable (to
dissuade criticism).
>oh you want to know what marxism is bro? Start with marx entire corpus and the entire soviet encyclopedia then come back for more
Once again c/lit/ pseuds being complete frauds.

>>17378461
Yep. Because marxism is a priori perfect like mathematics anyone who claims to have understood marxism without being a marxist themselves haven't really understood it.

>>17381790
with what fucking means of production, retard? the one per the capitalist system is privately owned?

>>17377998
marx is all about just be yourself bro

46 replies and 24 posters so far and no one has answered any of my questions in the OP. I guess Marx really is the ultimate pleb filter.

>>17381933
>I guess Marx really is the ultimate pleb filter.
No, that's Hegel: the everyone filter.

>>17381425
I mean I am a middle class university student but what about what I said was wrong?
>>17381690
>>17381769
I'm just stating what Marx believed

>>17378076
All work is meaningless. There is no ideology or system that will help you find meaning in life, just accept it. The time to improve yourself is now, not in some distant theoretical utopia.

>>17378014
he can't because if he does and then comes here protesting that it's bullshit (which it is, complete garbage) you then will tell him to read theory and give him a 50 fucking book meme about the books he has to read before approaching the Capital again.
Nobody has the patience to read 100+k pages of absolutely retarded autistic drivel with no intellectual value whatsoever, you first of all, so you retire into your bubble of read theory sweaty.
You are apathetic Zoroastrian seethe-magi: you seethe at the universe and weak people's minds cave.

>>17380404
It's pretty reassuring that many Twitter Marxists couldn't even write a basic summary like this.

>>17378557
>verbal Jujitsu
no retard
you tell people to read the capital before arguing with you about anything Marc says
then you tell people to read 50 books before even approaching capital.
Nobody is fooled by your subhuman rhetoric, the simple truth is that the capital is pure, drooling, hollering, simian-blank-eye-starey retardation.

>>17380404
>follows a Hegelian dialectic
Correction: Not a Hegelian dialectic (which is idealist and not related to economic circumstances), but a materialist dialectic between material classes. That's why it's called dialectical materialism. Inspired by Hegel, true, but fundamentally unrelated.

>>17380404
Class struggle is the biggest false flag and red herring ever. It's kike deflection to distract from the fact that racial differences are the only struggle that matters. When we go back to ethnostates, about 95% of the problems of capitalism disappear overnight. If we don't do this, we will forever live in clown world.

>>17384640
in that it makes even less sense

>>17381842
I'm surprised it took this long for someone to comment on the fact that the chart puts the ENTIRE Great Soviet Encyclopedia before Vol. 1 of Capital which is hilarious.
The bunkerchan link is the cherry on top.

>>17380404
Additionally, the Hegelian dialectic involves a thesis-antithesis-synthesis resolution, whereas materialist dialectic is only thesis-antithesis-thesis-antithesis-etc. progression in a descending order. There is no resolution of both sides, only the supremacy of the antithesis in each case. Hegel would not be happy about his theory being appropriated when it doesn't even follow the basic rules he originally established.

>>17384644
>noooo, it's actually the 0.5% of the 1% that's the problem, the rest are fine because they aren't specifically related to this random ethnic group and so they mean no harm to us!
Sorry but the only thing more laughable than Communists spouting off about crap are /pol/acks seething about Commies.

Can someone explain to me how communism isn't the ideology of the Nietzschean last man, all economic theory aside?

>>17384671
You will learn more about how the world works from 3 or 4 hours on /pol/ than you will learn in your entire 4 years of college.

>>17378302
>Thats the state of capitalism we're in now
That's what communists have been saying for decades

>>17384684
I have been browsing and posting on /pol/ on and off for 6 years and never went to college or uni.
Leave your comfort zone every now and then Anon.

>>17384640
In Marx, Hegel’s Logic is grasped as a theoretical anticipation of the complex and dialectical forms taken by capital itself. Hegel becomes an appropriate reference because it is capital itself which is ‘idealistic’.

>>17384671
>TU QUOQUE! TU QUOQUE! TU QUOQUE!
godrink bleach and sewage water from your granny's dilated ass

>>17384732
>capital itself which is ‘idealistic’.
Except it's not, it's materialistic, hence the term. Hegel's dialectic is fundamentally to do with opposing ideas in historical philosophy and politics, not an idealized conceptualization of any physical substance or entity. That would be more a kind of philosophical realism.
>complex and dialectical
You need to look at the meaning of words before you use them, for future reference. Saying things like this immediately presents you as not so bright.

>>17384749
Marx grounds Hegel in historic specificity out of transhistoricity. He does not empty out the dialectic and fill it in with his own properties, no. The movement of the Geist that Hegel traces is not transhistorical. Rather, the movement that he traces is Capital itself. The Subject for Marx, like Hegel is so abstract and can not be identified with any social actor whatsoever. This is the world where abstract labour (which is not immaterial labor) becomes the social bond, social mediation that mediates itself, reducing actual work to a simple expression of abstract labor. Abstract labor is then the source of alienation. The self-moving subject, Spirit, Geist, is misrecognized in Hegel, it is described by Marx as Capital and its self-valorization.

>>17380404
have you guys ever worked laborious jobs? i have and my friends currently do and they all recognize the value that their bosses add. a lot of work goes in to running a company and just because it isnt as blatant as hammering a nail into a piece of wood doesnt mean it isnt necessary.

>>17384771
>The movement of the Geist that Hegel traces is not transhistorical
incredible how many ways atheists have found to call God's Providence without referring to God

>>17384771
>The movement of the Geist that Hegel traces is not transhistorical. Rather, the movement that he traces is Capital itself.
Neither Marx nor Hegel can be conclusively verified. They may as well both be correct, or both incorrect. Anyhow, nothing you've said contradicted the point I made.

>>17384781
Everyone needs a surrogate. For Hegel, Geist, for Marx, capital. They all want to see meaning in history, it's just a matter of what one prefers to focus on (material, spirit, etc.)

>>17383224
>I mean I am a middle class university student but what about what I said was wrong?
Nothing, the whole theory is just stupid bourgie cope

I'm going to do you a big favour and help you out, OP. Marx actually isn't as complicated as many Marxists make him out to be with respect to his major points, but at the same time he is not as simple as some of his detractors (mainly /pol/) make him out to be. The first thing you'll want to do is look at the philosophical foundation of his thought, so that you are clear on what you are getting into before you analyze any of the conclusions he draws. I am not a Marxist, and actually fundamentally oppose Marxism, but I hope this is clear enough. Marxists can try to correct anything they think is erroneous and I will see if they are correct. There may be some minor points I am wrong on, but I think I have studied him enough to explain him generally, in a way that makes for a decent generalization of Marxist and communist thought.

Marxism is based on these presumptions/assertions:
-scientific materialism (epistemology)
-utilitarianism and distributive egalitarianism (ethics)
-physicalism/nominalism (mind/metaphysics) - needless to say metaphysics and "metaphysical mind" are rejected wholesale, which is common in Anglosphere and post-Hegelian thought even outside of Marxism.

Marxism does not have a political underpinning to its philosophy, nor does it (per se, unless you include, eg, the Communist Manifesto as Marxist literature) give any political imperative.

If you are already at odds with any of the above philosophical positions, then you will likely not be convinced by any Marxist literature, so it's not worth bothering with it unless you merely want to understand their reasoning within another philosophical framework, and without actually agreeing with the conclusions yourself. Let's move on.

The most obvious concept that gets brought up is the labour theory of value, which does not posit that each minute of labour by each person is quantitatively equal, like some people claim. "Labour" is abstracted into a qualitatively indistinct pool, but where higher qualities of concrete labour represent higher quantities in this abstract pool. A watch maker who works 1 hour will thus contribute much more abstract labour to this pool than a brick-carrier, because the former's labour is qualitatively superior, due to his specialization. Anyhow, to simplify it all, products are created with labour in this sense, and thus products of varying value are created depending on the amount of abstract labour that goes into them. 1 hour of concrete labour by any worker does not necessarily equal 1 hour of concrete labour by any other worker. The other aspect of labour that has to be taken into account is the use of capital, which is essentially all productive non-human resources. Capital, under capitalist laws of state, is privately owned, which includes land, machinery, tools, and everything else that is either necessary or aids productive work one way or another.

Cont.

>>17377998
Capitalism encourages a society based on competition, in which everyone is an enemy of the individual in a struggle for resources to survive. Socialism encourages mutual cooperation between people as a community, and a sharing of resources to survive. In essence, it's psychopathy vs. empathy.

How did Karl Marx debate the chuds of his time

>>17385100
Capital of course does nothing without labour*, so that there is a need for the owners of capital to either work the capital themselves, or contract workers who will contribute their labour to make use of capital. Workers are thus paid a certain amount to work the capital, and in general workers will be paid whatever their labour is worth IN MARKET VALUE, generally speaking and assuming pseudo-slavery isn't employed. The market value of labour is dictated, on one hand (which is the essentially important aspect here), by the demand by the owners of capital, which is based on their ability to make a profit from it. If labour cannot be profited from, then labour will not be bought, and thus the price of labour will decrease, due to decreased demand, to a point where it IS profitable. The profit margin on labour is the labour surplus value, which is the difference between the market value of labour and the Marxian labour value, or LTV (the abstract quantity, of abstract labour * capital multiplier).

Due to the nature of the labour market, like any other market, it can be cornered and monopolized on the demand side, which is much more likely than the supply side when workers are not considered as coordinated groups of suppliers, but as individuals (un-unionized - this partially explains socialism's support of trade unionism, which attempts to minimize demand-side monopolization). This is just the nature of reality in capitalism, because the owners of capital will always be less numerous than the suppliers of labour (the masses of proletarian workers). Then when one considers that the increasing profit margins, the extraction of labour surplus value from labourers, leads to these profits being reinvested in more capital, one can understand that capital is progressively heaped up by one class of capital-owners in opposition to workers.

We may also note that the productive multiplier of capital does not affect the labour market, intrinsically, at all. If the productivity of capital increases, the labour surplus value begins to increase a lot, which is entirely absorbed by the capital owner, due to the labour market not intrinsically reflecting the change in productivity. I say intrinsically, because the reinvestment of this profit/LSV can create demand for new jobs (or fewer jobs) and thus affect the labour market. This is part of the "final stage" of Marxist theory, because productivity becomes so high that labour is barely even required anymore, and a decisive stage is reached in which "proper" socialism is either established** and the workers are saved from rule by corporations, or corporations totally dominate government and the people are kept in a state where they are not so discontent as to destroy everything, but well off enough so as to accept their lot.

*Noting of course that capital basically acts as a productive multiplier of abstract value produced from concrete labour

Cont

Value form is either exchange value or use value.
Use value is for consumption, exchange value is for profit.
Commodity fetishism is... shit i should know this... Im never going to get this shit entirely...

>>17384638
>you tell people to read the capital before arguing with you about anything Marc says
In your head your schizo demons do this, in reality no one says you have to read everything Marx says to critique him. But, to understand Capital you have to read a few of his works beforehand. Stop lying to prove a point.

>>17385325
No, people actually say that. But also
>ITS NOT A WASTE OF INK ITS ACTUALLY REALLY DEEP AND YOU HAVE TO READ HIS BIOGRAPHY, THE STATE OF RUSSIAN SOCIETY, OPINION PIECES ON CLASS, HIS SUPER DUPER ADVANCED PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING, HIS BOOKS ON ECONOMICS, AND THEN YOU CAN HOPE TO UNDERSTAND THIS MASTERPIECE OF ECONOMIC THEORY
Nobody with a brain needs 30 fucking books of primer before reading a hot take on economics. If anything, telling people to read 15 books of garbage and 15 books of propaganda before reading the definitive book those literary piles of shit point to is just self-induced brainwashing.

>>17385351
relax buddy you dont need to read 15 books.
Just a secondary source because capital is too dense.
Im reading harveys book on capital and it says a lot of interesting things.
Such as Shays law and it claims that keynes was agaisnt it while milton friedman was for it. And despite the fact that marx was the first to object it keynes claimms to have not been influenced by marx. Right.

>>17385410
says law typo.

Marxism doesn't work.

>>17378057
Dark text on a dark background. So this is the power of the marxists

>>17385157
>Socialism encourages mutual cooperation between people as a community, and a sharing of resources to survive. In essence, it's psychopathy vs. empathy.

>>17384775
Shhh marxists represent the working class, but they don't do THAT
manual labour YUCK.. theyd rather imagine themselves as lenin murdering a bunch of people for glory

>>17385174
He focused more on getting some poor woman pregnant and not taking care of the child

>>17384620

>>17385410
>Too dense
Dont read IJ

gross kike full of personal insecurities and delusions turned into a fake ideology

>>17385157
What's with the leftists nowadays misusing psychopathy?
Self-interest is not psychopathy and Capitalism is also not pure self-interest. Empathy very much has a place in a capitalistic society and competition is not the wanton slaughter of competitors. Competition is healthy for societies to engage in and it creates a (theoretical) system of merit where the best climb even higher to be better still. Psychopaths in general just abuse that because they ARE better. They're just also shitty human beings.

>>17384775
>Their bosses add
Usually. Management exists for a very good reason beyond the baseline "professional tard wrangler" occupation. But lemme give you an example of what kind of people I have above me.
>Two women, middle aged and elderly. Both out of shape and overweight. The elderly woman refuses to do anything she's told and will never admit fault, the middle aged one has no critical thinking skills, mathematical skills, baseline work ethic, no grasp on managerial duties, and needs to be constantly mentored (by me mind you) on how to do her job
>Above them is a mid-twenties druggie more concerned with being people's friend than their boss and he let's his crew do as they please even if that means smoking weed in the freezer instead of anything actually productive. Their missed work and messed get pushed to my shift.
>Above him is an overweight middleaged man who does his basic managerial tasks but looks for any opportunity to claim something isn't his problem. This is the best manager in the store. At this level, they make more than twice my pay hourly
>Above him is a late-middleaged man who has slightly higher levels of competence expected out of him but disappoints everyone that actually has to deal with the fall out of him handling those tasks. He's in charge of orders, and making sure the food area stays profitable yet with no sense as to why we blow our budgets so fast despite ordering 3x what we need on a quickly spoiling product. At this level they get bonuses based on budget performance.
>Above him is an elderly woman whos job it is to oversee the schedules and associates. Nobody has been fired or even written up in the two years she's been there but there have been constant scheduling conflicts and hours are given to whoever cries the most even if they refuse to show up for work. At this stage they make thrice my pay, hourly.

>>17385245
Pretty similar to modern production functions a la Cobb-Douglas. Too simple though. Should involve returns to tech, and the fact that tech returns can involve productivity increases to both capital and labor. Accumulation of capital should increase the returns to labor, given no market power.

>>17385245
One thing to add to the last paragraph: Demand for products is an actual issue, which I think was focused on by early 20th century Marxists, and not Marx himself (correct me if I'm wrong here). What I mean is that if there is no one purchasing the goods produced by wage labour and highly productive capital, then there is no reason to mass-produce in the first place, so that SOMETHING has to be given to the labour-pool in order to continually generate demand for products, or at least the labour-pool has to have something to give so that it can consooom and aide to capital accumulation of the capitalists (this can again be labour, but in the form of services rather than factory/capital work). What this has turned into, in the modern world, is essentially welfare handouts and a service-based economy (which is essentially generated from thin air, ultimately; eg quantitative easing) to continue stimulating the economy, which results in further pileup of wealth in the capital-owner class.

I think I've covered the economic essentials, I might come back if I remember something important I've forgotten. Now the examination of history, dialectical materialism, has to be considered. This is where the scientific aspect of Marx's theory applies, but where there is also, at least, three problems:
-the issue of causation in scientific analysis, meaning one cannot prove a cause (Marx's "first cause" in historical development is class warfare). Marx can only scientifically demonstrate certain facts, which say nothing about "first causes", and at best display strong correlations. This is not to say that class warfare has NEVER existed or occurred.
-Additionally, there is no room for the scientific method (obviously). There is only one historical progression we can analyze, and we can only observe it as it happened through the historical lens. One cannot create accurate hypotheses of cause-and-effect based on a single observation of a phenomenon.
-It does not take into account instances of "class solidarity."
Apart from these issues, there is little problem with dialectical materialism per se. What it proposes is that, after the (according to Occam's razor, mind you) early primitive communist hunter-gatherer period, agrarian society developed with strict class systems. As history went on, the alleged prime-mover, class warfare, gradually loosened these class bonds and a cascade of levels occurred whereby the highest classes were gradually swept from their positions, and following this pattern, eventually there will only be one class left. This is "dialectical" and "material" because it is a clash of two opposed material interests which forms a dialectic, resulting in a "synthesis." Although, it's not really a synthesis, more like a consolidation of the antithesis.

**(from last post) by socialism being established we mean either direct state control of the economy, or huge taxation which almost entirely eliminates the collection of LSV by capitalists.

>>17385157
>khmer rouge
>empathy

>>17385576
>Above her is the head honcho of the store. His job is to oversee absolutely everything and ensure all tasks get done in a reasonable manner. He's infamous for working stacked shifts, weekdays only 6-12 AM when the store is 24 hours and all of them are supposed to be his oversight. At this stage, he has a doctor's pay, salary.
That's all within one building with a roster of 20-25 people, management included. I should probably note that all of the fatman's responsibilities, the ones he gets paid twice my rate to do, are shared between everyone above him.
Despite the incessant incompetence of the managerial team however, the store runs smoothly enough to fly under the radar and keep turning a large profit.
For shits and giggles,
>Above him is the Area manager that oversees stores in a region of the state. It's his job to escort corporate suits around, watch the store's productivity, and ensure nothing burns down. He (supposedly) makes three times what the lackey below him does.

>>17385583
>hypotheses
theories*

>>17385579
Labour productivity is abstracted away by Marx, it forms part of the formless labour pool.
>Accumulation of capital should increase the returns to labor, given no market power.
Explain what you mean?

I'll be gone for a little while before I reply next.

>>17384790
I know that, it's just funny watching them really believe they are atheists

>>17385583
One of the biggest themes one ought to keep in mind with respect to Marxism is the emphasis of capital vs. labour. Labour is always owned by the man who labours, capital is, in capitalism, owned privately and thus is a mechanism of leverage, and financial power, for those who own it over the man who labours. Privately owned capital means that there will necessarily be wealth inequality (and, allegedly, social alienation - this is actually one of the weaker points), which is why communism must abolish private property.

If anyone actually finds this helpful let me know and I'll continue.

>>17385715
yes this is unironically very useful thank you I would love to read what follows

>>17385679
Because of the law of diminishing marginal returns. Imagine a production consisting of one machine and one laborer. It produces 5 utility. Another laborer is added, but because there is only one machine, the output per laborer is reduced. The production now produces 8 utility, but only 4 per laborer, unlike before where it produced 5 per laborer. The value of labor is down. Imagine now that the company purchases another machine, adding capital to the production. Now there are 2 machines and 2 laborers. The productivity of labor has now increased to 5 per laborer again. The demand for labor, and therefore its remuneration, is bound to its productivity. Imagine for example that the production has 10 machines but only 1 laborer. The productivity of the production is very low, the capital is wasted. The more capital there is, the more demand there is for labor.

In a production function like you alluded to, the result is derived like in the image attached.
K= capital, L= labor, B=technology (TFP), Y= output, pi=profit, w=wages, r=interest (return to capital)

cont.

>>17385991
cont. [2/2]

The graph attached shows the last function w as a function of capital K for different values of technology B. Wages are growing as capital grows, and the relationship becomes stronger as technology increases.

>>17383224
>I'm just stating what Marx believed
understood

>>17386003
Note, neoclassical assumptions made:
1. CES, which implies constant returns to scale
2. Assumption of constant income shares. Pikkety would argue agains this, but it does not change the marginal product/wage result, and is far easier to work with than other CES.
3. No market power

>>17378057
>Greentext for author name
Do bunkercucks really?

>>17385715
Pic. related gives one an idea of the fundamental presupposition of dialectical materialism - ie that matter is predominant over mind, and that humans are fundamentally powerless to their material situation - all human thought is shaped, even determined, by its socio-economic environment. The materialist presupposition is that material factors govern the minds of men, and that the minds of men do not fundamentally govern material factors (inserting my opinion: these can both be valid takes, depending on the situation). This is basically an inversion of Hegel's ideas. Yet, Marx is not obviously correct here; Marx's one advantage is that placing material, quantifiable things as causally primary means they can be analyzed scientifically and empirically, which cannot be done with Hegel's (in my opinion, not perfect, but more accurate and sophisticated) approach. This means that Marx gains the benefit of the doubt over Hegel, because he is more understandable and relatable to most people, and his theory can be more easily checked against hard data without as much abstract thought. But again, this does not mean Marx is correct, for the reasons I gave in the previous post, just that he has selected a position more tenable to modern thought. This is one area I fundamentally diverge from Marx, yet there is still merit in some of his material observations which Hegel himself didn't make. As I just said, both takes are conditionally valid. Fundamentally, depending on the given situation, man can supersede material, or man can be superseded.

One must realize that given certain conditions, situations can be reversed and one theory can dominate another in terms of its descriptive or predictive power. This is the case with Marxism in the modern age. It is a modern theory of society for modern times. It applies quite well to society as we know it, but only since the Industrial Revolution, or at most the dawn of global commerce and the rise of the merchant class. Marx knew the peak of this era well, and that's why he describes it so well. The only mistake is extending observations of a particular period to all of history. This paragraph is my view, so take it as you will.

There's quite a few things I've skipped over. Marx talks a lot about the "dehumanisation" (not his words, but I think it's what he was going for) and alienation caused by a capitalistic type of thought where everything is commodified (commodity fetishism, reification), which pulls the collective mind away from "social thought" or "real thought" and "reality", and into thought about money, produce, goods and such, which are fundamentally unreal abstractions. Most of this is accurate and insightful, so long as one remembers to equate these tendencies with capitalism, and not wealth inequality per se, where capitalism is the essentially modern preoccupation with trade, industry and commerce.

>>17384598
No, it's not. Work can be fulfilling. Working to better yourself often gives life meaning. Working to better others gives life meaning. Capitalism saps the meaning out of a good day of hard work. You are seen as a dollar.

>>17378057
people like you harm any chance that thered be a workers movement by reading a bunch of 19th century shit and spouting that anything other than marxist leninism is revisionist.
Capital is fine but id argue that even that is not needed the rest of it belongs in the trash.

>>17385991
>The more capital there is, the more demand there is for labor.
You're right. But increased capital efficiency decreases the need for higher quantities of labour for the same amount of output. It's a tricky situation, and I feel like I'm probably neglecting some variable or consideration here. This would only affect Marxist predictions for the future I think, rather than anything intrinsic about the theory. My only other remark would be that, despite increased capital reserves, wages seem to have stagnated in most 1st world countries, which would seem to confirm the previous theory I outlined.
Thanks for reminding me of my old days in economics and finance, though. I'm guessing you've completed or are doing a degree? I quit about 3 years in and swapped to philosophy and independent studies in my spare time while working.

Why does everyone think they’re right all the time?

>>17377998
me am rich person. me not like rich person. repeat for century.

>>17386811
Because Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were both wrong, and the fundamental drive behind all life is the will to be right

>>17386793
> But increased capital efficiency decreases the need for higher quantities of labour for the same amount of output
marx talked about that.

113 replies and 44 posters later and still no one has answered anything in my OP..Marx truly is the ultimate pleb filter.

Reminder if your critique of capitalism is grounded in instability, unfair rent distribution, or struggles between sociological classes, you're to marx essentially utopian & advocating for the sort of socialism the schumpeters of the world found reconcilable with capitalism. if you think the real meat of the problem is simply that surplus value extraction is unfair you'd be much better adjusted being a georgist or roemerian coupon socialist type, a lot less to figure out.
a critique of capitalism is properly grounded in all human life becoming through its embedding in commodity relations merely an appendage of unthinking capital sitting over us and brooking no escape.

>>17386955
thanks for the bunkerchan containment threat OP

>>17386962
>a critique of capitalism is properly grounded in all human life becoming through its embedding in commodity relations merely an appendage of unthinking capital sitting over us and brooking no escape.
You're right, but that's not really Marxism as a whole. There are plenty of critiques along those lines, ranging from fascism, Guenon, and so on. In fact, those posters tend to emphasize the aspect you just mentioned more than actual Marxists.

>>17386995
Nope that is Marxism
>ranging from fascism, Guenon, and so on
Nobodies. Get out of here with those shit memes you underage fuck.

>>17384620
Criminally underrated post.

>>17378014
>Communist calling someone else lazy
That’s fucking rich - oh, I’m sorry, it’s ‘bourgeoisie’, isn’t it?

>>17387001
>Nope that is Marxism
No, it's just one small aspect of Marxism. Marxism touches heavily on all of those things you believed it thought were irrelevant.
>Nobodies. Get out of here with those shit memes you underage fuck.
Cool it. Marxism is not unique in its criticisms of capitalism, that much should be obvious.

>>17384732
>>17384771
>>17386962
These are the only people that read in this entire thread

>>17387076
>I don't read but these people do

oh cool another thread about marx, i wonder what kind of insightful discussion will be conducted by people who have definitely read more than the introduction to the commu-
oh

>>17386962
finally a good fucking post

>>17386962
>a critique of capitalism is properly grounded in all human life becoming through its embedding in commodity relations merely an appendage of unthinking capital sitting over us and brooking no escape.
easy to say and sounds deep and profound to pseuds but it has no true meaning. hot air.

>>17387076
wow you selected exactly the most dogmatic idiotic shills.

>>17378057
Is there a list that won't waste me a year worth of reading only to come to the conclusion that the ideology is dogshit?

>>17387157
Kek this

>>17387198
>a critique of capitalism is properly grounded in all human life becoming, through its embedding in commodity relations, merely an appendage of unthinking capital sitting over us and brooking no escape.
I think he's saying that we get plugged into the capitalist money matrix and it warps us in ways that we dont consciously perceive because it establishes how people live, and capitalists can continue to dominate by holding the power through having the money. Maybe im reading into it too much

>>17386793
> increased capital efficiency decreases the need for higher quantities of labour for the same amount of output.

I assume that by increased capital efficiency you mean factor productivity i.e. capital technology, i.e. productivity of capital growing for a given fixed combination of capital and labor.
In that case, demand for labor should not in fact drop, it's the opposite actually. Why? Because the marginal cost of capital has fallen as a result of the tech improvement, you need less capital to create the same amount of output. This is exactly equivalent to increasing the amount of capital - capital/output has grown. With that said, you are right that fewer workers are needed for the same output, just as less capital is needed. If demand is completely inelastic, this should ceteris paribus lead to a reduction in demand for workers. But if demand is not completely inelastic, as is the case in most situations, the reduced marginal cost of production leads to a shift in supply - more goods are supplied at lower prices - which means that we end up at a combination of lower price/higher production than before. I have attached the math for such a function where total factor productivity B is replaced with a pure capital-augmenting technology A. I won't post a graph, because it is identical to the one I posted before, for the reason I stated above - it leads to a higher capital/output.

>wages seem to have stagnated in most 1st world countries, which would seem to confirm the previous theory I outlined.

The reason why wages have stagnated in Western countries is because of capital flight to 3rd world countries and immigration. This result can also be replicated in stylized Solow model like this, which is pretty cool, but it takes a lot more math, so I'll spare the both of us. It basically happens because capital intensive industry in the West, where capital is cheap and labor expensive, moves to the 3rd world or imports the 3rd world. When moving to the 3rd world, capital owners take advantage of the lack of capital overseas to increase their returns. This represents a net gain for the capital exporting countries, but deprives it of wages. Importing 3rd world is an increase in the supply of labor, which reduces wages. Branko Milanovic "Global Inequality" explains it very well in non-technical language.

> I'm guessing you've completed or are doing a degree?

Yeah, I'm cand.polit.

You seem interested in academic economics, you should give it a try man

The main critiques of the Solow model for this purpose would be the assumption of no market power combined with the assumption of constant returns to scale. Given industries with increasing returns to scale, companies could leverage that fact to gain increasing market power and impose monopsony (reverse monopoly, since workers are supplies of labor) conditions on the labor market.

>>17387304
no you fucking moron. he said it because it sounds cool and deep with no regard to what it actually refers to it or whether or not or in what sense it is true. yeah you could juggle it around and reduce it down to statments that are untestable, false or trivially true. so fucking what.

>>17377998
>gibs
>me
>dat
>fo
>free
Done

>>17377998
Marx and most materialists in general are more guilty of reification than most idealists. Idealists tend to accept that abstractions exist and precede the physical, whereas materialists either have to make the retarded claim that abstractions themselves are physical (reification) or otherwise exclusively derived from the physical (even though the physical cannot be the physical of there does not exist some abstract category of the physical to which it belongs).

>>17387724
i dont know what youve just said but i do know science comes from materialism and science is pretty coo.

>>17387748
Anon i...

>>17387476

>>17377998
Rich people bad
Poor people good
Kill the rich people and take their stuff

>>17387880
>some poor people become rich
>They seize power
>Communist dictatorship
OH NOO MARXFAGS, WE GOT TOO COCKY

>>17387899
Looks like the solution is another Marxist revolution :^)