/lit/ - Literature

It's irrelevant either way
Only stupid people have opinions

Hal Draper's Marx's Theory of Revolution. All 5 books.

>>18302137
If you've read the works of that fatass drug addicted gambling addicted disgusting leech that left his wife and children to starve while siphoning off of his actually sane family members and using their goodwill to fuel his addictions and leave his family to rot, you are a danger to yourself and everyone around you.

>>18302137

>>18302137
>If you haven't read Vols. I–III of Capital, then your political/economical opinion is irrelevant.

>>18302137

>economic opinion from a man whom economists haven't taken seriously for many decades

Sure thing, bud.

>>18302432
>>18302667
>>18302803
found the ones who haven't read vols. I–III of Das Kapital

Topology by Munkres
Principles of Mathematical Analysis by Rudin
Calculus by Spivak
Linear Algebra Done Right
Naive Set Theory by Halmos

>>18302137
Politics and economics are irrelevant to a virtuous existence you materialist swine.

Marxism is not scientific. When it was created positivism was considered science and that's why people keep calling it that.
The Labour theory of value in unfalsifiable and not a scientific hypothesis.
Marxism does not exist in modern day economics/academy. Marxist authors only publish in subpar Marxist journals (literally, not in the "cultural marxism" sense) or books.

Pic related is a modern economics textbook. If you don't trust me that's ok, just search "economics textbook" on amazon.

>>18302137
>read this unemployed jew who leeched off of others his entire life to understand economics and politics

nah

>>18302137
>>18302788
Yes. Unironically. I read Marx I'm currently reading traditionalist authors (Charles Maurras), because we cannot whine that they do not read our books, when we do not read them. And guess what? Those trad authors, are, so far, dull, compared to Marx. Basically, their discourse is: there shouldn't be class struggle, workers have been manipulated. We should all, as a whole, work, without rebelling. Workers work, Capitalists organize production and make the workers benefit from their "hierarchy". Last chapter, this Maurras retard even made an apology of slavery. So basically, everybody produce, shut their mouth, and be satisfied of his living condition, even if he is on the bad side of hierarchy. Of course, in this case, the Capitalists can only go richer, because it's the very nature of Capitalism, to enrich those that are already owners, absorbing the surplus labor of the workers.
Of course, for them, it's always the jews fault, never the mode of production. The jews, the republic. Of course, they think it would be better, with them at the government, which i highly doubt. They want their version of Capitalism. But it would still be, Capitalism. I am not interested in Swatiskas flag, just to make me feel better.
Apparently, i didn't make a mistake when i left the traditionalists.

>>18303020
>The Labour theory of value in unfalsifiable and not a scientific hypothesis.
Proof of work cryptocurrencies proved the labor theory of value. In the form of electricity, which is dead labor.
Market cap of those cryptos are proportionnal to their total yearly amount of electricity used to mine them.
https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/how-much-electricity-do-bitcoin-bitcoin-cash-ethereum-litecoin-and-monero-use/
There is clearly a correlation, and even i suck at maths.

>>18302137
If your opinion is so relevant, justify historical materialism.

>>18303171
If you ask about this, you are not so far of accepting it as the valid theory.

>>18302137
>I read a book written over a century ago about a system of economics that the author couldn't even properly define and spent THREE VOLUMES inadequetely describing and which translated IRL into mass shooting people that owned private property
no thanks

>>18302137
The world has changed a lot since. It seems as outdated as taking economic advice from Venetian mercantilists

>>18303148
First of all, how do you define labour? Crypto is mined by machines (capital), that are made from natural resources (land). If your say that those things only have "value" (another poorly defined term) because they are fruit of human labour, you arrive at an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Second, science can never prove anything, it can only try to falsify bad hypothesis in favor of a stronger hypothesis. If anything in your theory can be "proven", that's a hint that you are doing positivism and not empiricism.

Finally, yes, there is a correlation between human labour and price(a well defined and measurable quantity), but there is also a correlation with capital and land.
Modern economics considers work, capital and land as the "factors of productions" because they can be measured and the correlation can be tested.

I'm going to shower now, might take a while to reply again.

Read "Civil war in France".

>>18302137

A layman with no background in economics and political economy would be hard pressed to understand Capital. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy is a much better intro into his thought.

HURRDURR JUST READ THIS "NOT BIBLE" FOR ATHEISTS AND YOU WILL COOM!!!!!!! SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>18302143
So true. Read Blanchot's political writings. The only relevant political opinion is denial and refusal to have an opinion.

>>18303231

>First of all, how do you define labour? Crypto is mined by machines (capital), that are made from natural resources (land). If your say that those things only have "value" (another poorly defined term) because they are fruit of human labour, you arrive at an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Not that anon. But most economists define those as fictive values or otherwise called arbitrary values , like most fiat money.

>Modern economics considers work, capital and land as the "factors of productions" because they can be measured and the correlation can be tested.

Marx does talk about this extensively in his chapter on rent. Later Marxists like David Harvey posit that geography and the natural value in land and the production thereoff is extremely important in ways Marx didn't realize at the time. Marx however did think that the large land owners of his time were capital owners like any other capitalist.

Marxism is completely irrelevant.

>>18303248
only a layman with no background in economics could find marx's fallacies convincing

>>18303329

Most economics books are litterally useless. Its just algebra and pseudo scientiffic theories pasted unto a highly dynamic social reality.

Marx was the first to come to the realization that without studying social relations economics doesn't mean anything, and is just idealized scenarios. Marx therefore talks about a political economy, and not just economics, which nowdays has to do with finance, and not politics.

>>18303350
>has never read an economics textbook

>>18303304
>Not that anon. But most economists define those as fictive values or otherwise called arbitrary values , like most fiat money.
I had never head of that expression before, at least I do not recall. A quick search yields a the definition: "a value not linked to an asset or liability". I don't know if crypto would fit that, you can't copy paste your coins and you can buy and sell it. I can see the case being made for copyrights or brands. Even in that case it seems like a slippery term. Are you sure you didn't mean "intangible goods"? Goods that can't be easily sold or bought and therefore can't be easily priced. Examples: brands, how much does the name "ferrari" cost?
This is an accounting term though.

>Later Marxists like David Harvey posit that geography and the natural value in land and the production thereoff is extremely important in ways Marx didn't realize at the time.
Does he still argue that all value comes from "labour" and that those things only have "value" because of labour applied to them? Because if he does, then he is still using the LTV, which is unfalsifiable. If he doesn't then he concedes that there is no surplus-value, no systematic exploitation in the capitalist system, no class struggle (in this regard) and that capitalism is not approaching it's imminent end (another unfalsifiable hypothesis).
Of course, that doesn't mean that the world is perfect but it does make marxism pointless.

>>18303622
>Are you sure you didn't mean "intangible goods"? Goods that can't be easily sold or bought and therefore can't be easily priced. Examples: brands, how much does the name "ferrari" cost? This is an accounting term though.
What it really means is that they're intangible. I have no idea what the cost to replace a sports car engine costs. You could obviously tell me but I wouldn't understand it, so it'd probably be misleading to say that something like this can't be priced. I don't see the point in this. The vast majority of content being sold is to non-technical people. The same could be said about music or video games or whatever.

> If he doesn't then he concedes that there is no surplus-value, no systematic exploitation in the capitalist system, no class struggle (in this regard) and that capitalism is not approaching it's imminent end (another unfalsifiable hypothesis). Of course, that doesn't mean that the world is perfect but it does make marxism pointless.
Anthropologically, Marx offers a measure of what he perceived of capitalism. This is how he chooses to define it:

Marxism is essentially the scientific expression of a materialist, historical materialist view of the world. In the principal contradiction of all societies, between human beings on the one hand, and the relations of production on the other hand, the latter is the dominant form and alone reproduces the former. . .

>>18303020
>The Labour theory of value in unfalsifiable and not a scientific hypothesis.
if this is the criterion for scientificity then most of economics is unscientific
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/economics/
>Economic theories and models are almost all unfalsifiable, and if they were, the widespread acceptance of Friedman’s methodological views would insure that they are not subjected to serious test. When models apparently fail tests, they are rarely repudiated. Economists conclude instead merely that they chose the wrong model for the task, or that there were disturbing causes.

>Marxism does not exist in modern day economics/academy.
obviously. marxism is the criticism of bourgeois ideology, so why and more importantly how would it be present within its main institutions?

>Marxist authors only publish in subpar Marxist journals (literally, not in the "cultural marxism" sense) or books.
"Marxist authors" i.e. communists publish mostly in their press organs and on their websites

>>18303227
the world has changed, but it still hinges on the self-valorization of capital by means of decreasing necessary labour time and everything that comes with this and that Marx has laid out

>>18303231
>Second, science can never prove anything, it can only try to falsify bad hypothesis in favor of a stronger hypothesis.
that's not even the currently "effective" bourgeois conception of science as popper isn't taken seriously anymore. at least learn some updated apologia instead of repeating what you've overheard on reddit.

scientists are so specialized now that they either just "shut up and calculate" or else believe in very basic misconceptions about what science as a whole is. and those elements of the bourgeois ideological division of labour who actually deal with this question, namely philosophers of science, have for some decades now given up the search for any useful demarcations criteria between science and non-science

>>18303654
>You could obviously tell me but I wouldn't understand it, so it'd probably be misleading to say that something like this can't be priced.
I meant the brand. When the ferrari accountant is doing the books, how much should they assign to "owning the brand ferrari". There isn't a market where everyone is buying and selling the brand ferrari.

>Marxism is essentially the scientific expression of a materialist, historical materialist view of the world. In the principal contradiction of all societies, between human beings on the one hand, and the relations of production on the other hand, the latter is the dominant form and alone reproduces the former. . .
It is scientific in the sense of the 19th century, i.e. positivism, not in today's sense.

>>18303656
I don't have much to say to you, anon. You gave me a quote by a literally who on SEP, which is a philosophy encyclopedia with articles that greatly vary in quality.

>that's not even the currently "effective" bourgeois conception of science as popper isn't taken seriously anymore.
That's is just wrong. In either case, positivism (which marxism uses) is inexistent in academia.

The rest of your post borderline religious, if you can just dismiss anything as "bourgeois bogeyman" there is nothing else to say.

>>18303824
>I meant the brand. When the ferrari accountant is doing the books, how much should they assign to "owning the brand ferrari". There isn't a market where everyone is buying and selling the brand ferrari.
Obviously the dealer network is, but the dealer network is quite dilapidated right now and I have no idea how much the Ferrari CEO pays himself.

Also, isn't the brand Ferrari already dilapidated? How many "Ferrari" Ferraris would it take to change its brand? Two or three cars out of every million? Maybe five? Well, if that's the case, the Ferrari brand has at least the same dilapidation as the term "Genus Senses".

>It is scientific in the sense of the 19th century, i.e. positivism, not in today's sense.


A "concept" in this sense is a statement that refers to some single thing in the world.

It describes a relation.

For example, the concept of "diabetes" may describe the way in which blood glucose levels in the body cause or cause problems in regulating blood-sugar levels in the body.

Therefore, a concept is not the same as a set of ideas or facts; it is a description of relationships that involves a relation or relation principle.

>>18303117
>So basically, everybody produce, shut their mouth, and be satisfied of his living condition
This but unironically