is karl a fag

[Anonymous No.12109853]

started reading karl marx. what do you think about his theory of value /lit/?

[Anonymous No.12109972]

>>12109853
it's shit

[Anonymous No.12110128]

>>12109853
>had seven children
>is he a fag

in b4 only three of his children survived until adulthood

[Anonymous No.12110269]

>>12109853
Everything happened the opposite of how he said and other less obese people fleshed out communist and non-capitalist thought, better.

[Anonymous No.12110272]

Read Marxism Philosophy and Economics by Thomas Sowell it's like 250 pages and will give you enough of an insight to him.

[Anonymous No.12110283]

*check*
ladies and gentleman, attention
attention please!!!!

ABANDON THREAD

LTOV question threads are UNDERGRAD shits farming for homework help.
DO NOT REPLY

Thank you, have a blessed day and God Bless the United States of America!

[Anonymous No.12110291]

>>12110269
>Everything happened the opposite of how he said
Rate of profit appears to fall.

Overproduction (automation) causes economic crisis

Polarization of all pre-capitalist classes continues into only two opposing forces: owners and workes for owners

Wealth inequality rises with unchecked capitalism

Political tension caused by wealth and inequality and worker discontent (but admittedly no grand first world revolution)

People feel more and more purposeless and alienated from their everyday life

Massive self destructive crises keep happening for no apparent reason as a normal "feature" of capitalist economies

[Anonymous No.12110293]

>>12110291
Thanks for the homework help. Almost ran out of time on blackboard :)

[Anonymous No.12111512]

>>12110272
>get a libertarian to tell you what Marx said
yeah... great. I'm sure he gives a very honest and minute roundup of Marx's thought

[Anonymous No.12112242]

>>12110272
>don't read him directly, trust our guys to tell it right

[Anonymous No.12112438]

>>12109853

I wrote this therefore this thread is now more valuable than before.

[Anonymous No.12112834]

>>12109853
Philosophy aside, in a given round of production the base weight of a price will be given by the number of commodities produced relative to a given wage over that period of time. In a c hour shift of production ( c * ($/hr)) / N where N being the # of commodities produced. For an 8 hour shift @ 5$/hr producing 200 commodities the base weight of a price 0.20$. The markup for this will be determined on the market based on relative prices of others in the same industry and aggregate demand for that commodity in the short run. But you cannot sell the commodity for less than your initial investment without running a deficit. So this base of 0.20$ is your anchor for a lowest price and is embodied labor in the wage form. The actual details about determining prices are also dependent on capital stock, credit structures ( interest rates), and capital depreciation on any technologies involved. When the LTV is complemented with Real Competition it actually is a pretty good predictor of prices. See Shaikh 2016

[Anonymous No.12112853]

>>12109853
>labour theory of value
Absolutely retarded. Polishing a turd doesn't make it worth more because no one wants a polished turd.

[Anonymous No.12114260]

>>12109853

Read Carson.

People misinterpret Marx's writings, Carson clarifies that's it's a subjective evaluation based on scarcity, preciousness, etc.

So, the mud pie may in fact be more valuable to someone than an apple pie, but obviously most society would agree that the apple pie is more valuable. The bourgeoisie are not "objectively" valuable because they own the means of production, it's argued <subjectively> that the proleteriat create all the value and the bourgeoisie oppress them parasitically.

>lrntoltv

[Anonymous No.12114268]

>>12110283

kek

[Anonymous No.12114301]

>>12110272

>Sowell

No thanks. If I wanted to read the ramblings of a retard I'd thumb through Mein Kampf again.

[Anonymous No.12114303]

>>12109853
He was a sly old racist.

[Anonymous No.12114328]

>>12114260

Rather, the proleteriat are not "objectively" valuable because of the fact that they labor, they are "subjectively" valuable because what they create is arguably valuable.

[Anonymous No.12114436]

>>12109853
Get a better grasp of the methodological mode of inquiry, master German Idealism before you can understand the value-form then the sort of question you want to be asking is how exactly you want to situate the emergence of value and its prehistory? Did australopithecus have a political economy? Human labour emerged as a real negentropic cosmological force potiently altering fundamental universal "laws" of nature. It's not merely academic but absolutely central to understanding the post-neolithic revolution extraction and emergence of a social surplus. With advances in robotization and AI the era of man as the only material cognitive force, with his subtle dexterity of the human hand, altering nature is coming to an end so of course we're in the process of the breakdown of value as such as Marx theorized in the Grundrisse.