/lit/ - Literature

>>21838801
materialism is false so economics is irrelevant

my thoughts? whoever distributes the resources in a marxist society is effectively the bourgeoisie and whoever has their resources distributed is the proletariat.

dated. doesn't hold up in the context of today's tech and rate of innovation. just read part 3.

>>21838826
Yeah I figured, seeing how long since it’s been written and all. I think it’s an interesting read nonetheless.

>>21838801
volume 1 chapters 10, 26-33 are a good poetic description of the history of capitalism the rest of it is a good mix of politics and economics, pretty good read.

>>21838801
He was right about everything anyone who says otherwise is retarded

>>21840634
His theory on value is pure drivel

>>21838801
dry prose and wackadoodle hegelian kookery

>>21838808
>>21838825
>>21838826
>>21840683
>>21840685
so you have not read it

>>21838801
Mostly I use length of the working day, but that's because I'm in a fordist industry. I also use the stuff about wages being entirely arbitrary including potentially below the cost of reproduction of actual living labour.

>>21838801
Dislike him.

>>21838801
No one in history of philosophy has been disproved as hard as him. That's something I guess.

>>21838801
Listened to the audiobook version.

My thoughts are that it's first principles are totally wrong and thus leads to a staking of incorrect extrapolations from those faulty first premises.
For example it assumes the labor theory of value is correct. Its not, and ideas and arguments built on the assumption that the labor theory of value is valid fall apart when applied to the real world as a result.

I guess it could be persuasive to someone who was ignorant of economics and ethics, who already leaned towards collectivism, and who feels resentment at those who do better than them in life.

I already had a education in economics, had a solid understanding of ethics, very much so a individualist, and harbor no resentment for those who are doing well.
So I wasn't a good target for it's manipulative appeals and faulty rationalizations.

To be theatrical about it, the book is Evil and Marx's father was close to the mark when he said the man was possessed by demons. lol

>>21838801
I read his shorter works and the summary of the Capital. I wanted to do these before I get to the Capital. I read only the first hundred pages after I started reading something else but one day I want to go through the whole thing.
I think reading the Capital is barely enough, there is a lot of debate even in Marxist cycles about his legacy. Some reject the labour theory of value while some defend it but this could be said about many of his theories such as his alienation theory and the falling rate of profit.
I personally like Marx and I agreed with almost everything he said. But as I said my study of him requires much more work to get the full picture. It was also pretty clear there is hard to find anybody who criticizes him and actually read any of his works.

>>21838801
Obsoleted by Ellul and Land
Also Marx failed to consider the deterioration bioleninism brings

Nobody has read capital in its entirety. Not even avowed Marxists/communists. It's too long, boring etc

anybody who has actually read its entirety will agree with marx's conclusions

>>21840685
>>21840683
>>21841459
>>21841442
>>21841465
>>21842587
so you have not read it

cute

>>21838801
Pseudo trash, not really worth it.

>>21842614
I admit, I've only read volume 1 and that was when I was still a Marxist. I've also read a bit of Bordiga, Rosa, Lenin and Pannekoek.
What I said about Ellul and Land is earnest and sincere

>>21840702
>>21842614
>asks for thoughts about the book
>gets thoughts about the book
>gets mad because you disagree
Faggot

>>21842945
thoughts are distinct from words, and someone whose critique stems from what he remembers from his audiobook recording of a conceptually dense text(do we think it's legitamate to say, listen to a work like Spinoza's Ethics in an audio format and pretend like we've spent any time engaging with the text?) paired with his "good economic background" which is probably the name he gives the cliches he half-learned in AP economics and heard repeated by his drunkard of a father, his slut of a sister, and his twitter friends, and another whose criticisms are summed up in terms like "drivel" and claims that Marx is disregarded by every thinker though there is no citation made of who these thinkers are, does not produce thought, but does create bubbles of sounds, in which lie the only form of truth these people are able to produce, it is the bubbling sound of their bad conscience, the cause also of their year long indigestion and problems falling asleep, and with waking up, both products of having let themselves become old without once actually thinking about anything with any sustained interest

>>21838801
I've read the manga.

>>21841465
>I already had a education in economics ... the book is Evil ... the man was possessed by demons
"Economists" really are modern-day priests

>>21838801
It's unfortunate that literally nobody is interested in criticizing it anymore. All the various economic schools have essentially segregated into their own circlejerks which barely interact, even in academia. Marxists are quick to point out that critics have never read their literature, but how many of them read the neoclassical, marginalist or austrian economists without simply dismissing them as bourgeois? Even the most literate of marxists barely extend their attention to the classics, the (left)keynesians and the post-keynesians (esp: Sraffa and Robinson). Even in the few journals in which economists of all types write, they essentially just completely ignore each other. No big critique of value theory or capital theory from either side. In the early 900s it wasn't like this: Pareto, Mises, Neurath, Lange, all of them interacted in decade-long debates.

>>21841465
>Assume A is correct. It's not!

>>21842945
Your disagreement is not rooted in logic or a refutation of Marx's assertions, but is an emotional reaction in defense of capital

>>21843498
I could easily say the same about your critiques of capitalism

>>21843316
>>21843498
Marx's Theory of Labor (and all of them, really) did not accurately describe the world. The Marginal Revolution proved this.
Walras, Jevons, and Menger were three economists that discovered that value was subjective. The Austrian economists took Marx the most seriously, though, I'm not sure why. Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, and Wieser extensively wrote about Marxism.
Marx was trying to objectively describe the world (and threw in his own value judgments when it was convenient). His predictions were also largely proven false. That's really what it boils down to. His descriptions of the world are not nearly as accurate as modern economics. It's plain and simple.
Technology has been helping make people more productive rather than replacing them (and even made people richer).
The empirical evidence for the rate of profit to fall has shown to be false.
The labor theory of value never really described the world correctly.(Consider the Cherry Pie hypothesis)
One thing I will say that was important was his work on power dynamics. He modeled them incorrectly, but it was still a point that was worth bringing to the table.
When I say he modeled it incorrectly, I mean that he modeled it within a Marxists framework, which was fundamentally flawed. However, some post-Keynesian economists that respect Marx, they were able to model this power dynamic imbalance. Robinson is the one who did it. It's based on her model of imperfect competition that economists can make the argument for minimum wage not causing unemployment.
Bowles, Gintis, and Robinson are economists that respect the work of Marx, but don't believe he was correct. They still largely work within the frame of neoclassical economics.
The early Austrians like Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, and von Wieser were the ones that were highly critical of Marx.
Additionally, another factor is what is known as The Second Industrial Revolution, a combination of inventions from 1870 to 1914 in areas as diverse as electricification, chemistry, steel, transport and medicine that was associated with a widespread improvement in living standards of the working classes in countries like the UK, France and Germany. There also was a decline in income inequality in many developed countries in the early half of the 20th century. Both of these events are hard to reconcile with Marxist predictions.

>>21843833
historical anecdotes are not refutation

you have not read the book

>>21838801
Is gay. Just keeps spinning the same wheels for thousands of pages. Word vomit. The guy can't actually give a complete description of the economy without admitting that maybe modern society has some good reasons for behaving the way it does. So he just keeps going and going never explaining or indicating that he even has a complete worldview for how the machinations of society operate, but it doesn't stop him from creating a Boogeyman to blame everything for.

>>21844928
Amazing

>>21838860
agreed, maybe check out Henry George if you're into economics and history around that time. Some of his stuff still holds up pretty well.