What is your best argument against him?

[Anonymous No.12379644]

[Anonymous No.12379662]

>>12379644
His shit don't work.

[Anonymous No.12379664]

>>12379644
gapitalism is the liberty :DDDD

[Anonymous No.12379674]

>>12379644
Occasionalism, all your faggy economic laws would stop working in an instant if Allah stopped willing them into existence

[Anonymous No.12379770]

>>12379662
>>12379664
>>12379674
I was being serious. I want an actual debunking of the Labour theory of value, dialectics and all this other stuff.

[Anonymous No.12379780]

>>12379644
Labor theory value as been proved incorrect, crumbling like 50% of all his theories.

[Anonymous No.12379818]

>>12379644
A resented kike NEET

[Anonymous No.12379827]

He looks like he dyed his moustache and he's a little fat. Disregarded entirely.

[Anonymous No.12379837]

>>12379644
Materialism is just straight up wrong. Nigga didn't even get off the ground.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.12379842]

>>12379644
Strner's and Bakunin's

That said, he was a pretty good economist.

>>12379780
Explain

[Anonymous No.12379845]

>>12379644
He was your typical jewish saboteur, don't buy into his 'to sooth the goyim' so-called 'racist' remarks. He was pursuing the interests of his tribe from the start.

[Anonymous No.12379848]

>>12379770
millions of people have died because of his ideas but "it wasn't true communism"

[Anonymous No.12379907]

>>12379644
>the only way to take down a bad guy with a state is a good guy with a state

[Anonymous No.12379910]

>>12379848
Go somewhere else

[Anonymous No.12379911]

>>12379842
Faggot

[Anonymous No.12379926]

>>12379910
Quit being a holodomor denier, alt-left bigot.

[Anonymous No.12379938]

>>12379842
Basically, Marx says that products have a value because of the work input in there. He presents it on quite the unique theoretical frame as said product must be socially needed and the time/process of doing it and yadda yadda.

Jumping to the end, the whole core of the marxist movement, the surplus value, says that as the labor is the only one that inserts value in the production process, and not the capital (machines, techniques, etc), the only possible explanation for the capitalist (or enterprise) to have a surplus in value (money) at the end of the process is because there is an unpaid value to one of the production factors, and because the capital pays itself, it is the workers. That's how Marx interprets the productive process on free market.

But in reality the market doesn't quite work like that. The prices are more driven by the demand side (personal preferences) than the supply side (cost). Marx theory revolves around a cost-driven market rather than a demand-driven one.

[Anonymous No.12379942]

>>12379938
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.12379997]

>>12379644
He has a gay ass Santa Claus beard.

[Anonymous No.12380001]

I bought his book... with money

[Anonymous No.12380012]

[Anonymous No.12380021]

>>12379644

Basically socialism is just better

[Anonymous No.12380033]

>>12380012
are you stupid?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.12380035]

>>12380001
Now read it
And you'll wish it had been labor vouchers

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.12380040]

>>12380035
Work labor notes? like the nazis? Quit copying me, cheetohands.

[Anonymous No.12380043]

>>12379674
How did the thread keep going after this post?

[Anonymous No.12380044]

>>12380035
How is money not labor vouchers?

[Anonymous No.12380052]

>>12380044
Money is debt vouchers.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.12380097]

>>12380044
It's for your time worked. No accumulation since it gets used up when you spend it

I'm still for a moneyless economy, but since people will have a hard time wrapping their head around it..

[Anonymous No.12380115]

>>12379938
This

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.12380137]

>>12379938
>The prices are more driven by the demand side (personal preferences) than the supply side (cost).
Mehehe. So the customers get to name their own prices. I see.
Get a job.

[Anonymous No.12380147]

>>12380137
You didn't post hear for about a year, right? This place was better during that period. You do not belong here, you are a commie dyke and everyone here hates you.

[Anonymous No.12380154]

>>12380147
it's a commie dyke in love with hitler's economics.

aka a confused bitch.

[Anonymous No.12380158]

>>12379644

[Anonymous No.12380160]

>>12379644
He wasn't born to witness the era of nuclear bombs and highly militarized nation states
Maybe if he were he'd realize how dumb and naive he and Hegel were, history isn't inevitably going to keep on progressing until we reach communism, capitalism might be our last socioeconomic system before going extinct

[Anonymous No.12380171]

>>12380035
>>12380040
>>12380097
>>12380137
Faggot

[Anonymous No.12380177]

>>12379938
>says that as the labor is the only one that inserts value in the production process, and not the capital (machines, techniques, etc)
wrong.
>The prices are more driven by the demand side (personal preferences) than the supply side (cost).
Marx doesn't deny this. the LTV isn't a theory of market prices.

[Anonymous No.12380218]

Constructed a system of historical interpretation so vast that his followers mistake its interpretive power for prophecy.

Which is to say the temptation to reduce all observations to a Marxist analysis can be so great that some cease to think in any other terms and undermine what was essentially correct in his thought by extending it to the point of absurdity.

(Only ex-Marxists will understand this)

[Anonymous No.12380238]

>>12379848
Source? (Don't quote Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn)

[Anonymous No.12380245]

>>12379848
Dr. Jordan Peterson?

[Anonymous No.12380258]

>>12380238
>Don't quote Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Jews murdered millions of Russians after the 1917 jewish bolshevik revolution, and they were able to obtain power there because they were funded by jewish capitalists like Jacob Schiff. Stop thinking in terms of abstract ideology. That is a ruse. It's not about capitalism vs communism, it's about jews vs whites.

[Anonymous No.12380275]

>>12380258
Germans were the ones who sent Lenin to destabilize Russia in the first place, were Germans Jews too?

[Anonymous No.12380277]

>>12380275
Lenin was a kike and the Germans were happy to get rid of the bolshevik kikes residing in their country. The sky is blue too.

[Anonymous No.12380285]

>>12379644
irrelevant in the first world service economies

[Anonymous No.12380311]

That his completely one-sided view of religion, at least in his most notable works, reduced religion down to a camera obscura, a reversing of the hierarchy of the world into a supreme realm that is never reached, and.was therefore an opiate for the masses.
Thinking that the 'illusory flower's of religion would die if society cast off the chains of capitalist society led to the exile and exermination of Christians in Russia/Ukraine when that did not go to plan.

And consequently this allowed for the complete misunderstanding of religion, and as gramsci noted, fascism did not make this mistake, as Mussolini established hegemony through his alliance with the Catholic church.

So basically, not only was marx's work a shallow materialist selective view of history and economics but also completely lacked any understanding of why religion is so valuable to people.

How can you use the theory that supposedly frees proletariats but at the same time undermines and despises their nature?

[Anonymous No.12380314]

>>12380275

Except Trotsky and co were funded by American Jewish bankers

[Anonymous No.12380338]

There is much about The Communist Manifesto that is valid from a conservative/traditionalist viewpoint. Marx was a product of the “spirit” of his Age, or zeitgeist. This 19th century zeitgeist remains the same today. Hence, Marx provides an insight into materialism, or what might also be called economic determinism, which has continued as the dominant ethos of the 20th and present centuries. As Oswald Spengler pointed out, Marxism does not seek to transcend the spirit of Capital but to expropriate it. The fundamental worldview of a Marxist and of a corporate globalist CEO is the same. This article examines the Marxist analysis of what is today called “globalization,” but does so from a conservative perspective.

[Anonymous No.12380364]

>>12380311
>Marx had a particular view of religion
>therefore whatever the Soviets did re religion is his fault

[Anonymous No.12380369]

>>12379848
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMOdDQQVZ6U

[Anonymous No.12380383]

>>12379644
At 4:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFti1SbC3pg

[Anonymous No.12380393]

>>12380338
The manifesto was a meme pamphlet written for uneducated workers, the fact that you're quoting it as if it contains some key insights into Marx's writings shows how little you know of marxism, stop talking about topics you have no understanding of.

[Anti/lit/ !N4bnZoKwfU No.12380395]

>>12380369
>>12380383
>Youtube

You should be banned.

[Anonymous No.12380398]

>>12380314
Can you please leave the thread, you schizo?

[Anonymous No.12380475]

>>12380364
>Marx said religion is poison and red terror is necessary
>you cant blame him for the terror of the soviets though

[Anonymous No.12380507]

>tfw all the posting about marx being irrelevant makes him relevant

[Anonymous No.12380513]

>>12380475
>a nineteenth century blogger is literally responsible for what people did after he died
>ascribing beliefs onto marx that he didn't express to discredit him when a state banhammers religious people

/lit/ is a /pol/ colony

[Anonymous No.12380528]

>>12380513
>a nineteenth century blogger is literally responsible for what people did after he died
Yes, Marx is responsible for what Lenin did. How is that hard to believe?
>ascribing beliefs onto marx that he didn't express to discredit him when a state banhammers religious people
Marx explicitly said that revolutionary terror was needed to transition from capitalism to socialism.

[Anonymous No.12380666]

>>12379770
>I want an actual debunking of the Labour theory of value, dialectics and all this other stuff.
That's now how this works. The onus is on him (or his followers) to prove his bullshit works and history has shown us that it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.12380682]

The biggest argument against scientific socialism is utopian socialism

[Anonymous No.12380931]

>>12379644
he's a faggot and he sucks cock.

[Anonymous No.12381011]

>>12380369
>TheFinnishBolshevik
>Lenin and Stalin in avatar

Yeah, that's gonna be a yikes from me

[Anonymous No.12381028]

>>12379644
His followers. There’s just something wrong with kind of person drawn to communism. Always has been.

[Anonymous No.12381073]

>>12380666
Nice try Satan.

Next time be divine like the rest of us and ignore posts from little kids obviously in college

[Anonymous No.12381097]

>>12379644

According to his theory, his theory is worthless...

FULL almond activation.

[Anonymous No.12381108]

>>12381028
did you absolutely have to post this? it churns the stomach

[Anonymous No.12381112]

[Anonymous No.12381124]

>>12380177
You say this in every thread, but it does nothing to address this particular critique. Neoclassical economics completely disregards Marx's delineation of exchange value as arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.12381174]

>>12380398
That's literally true, rabbi.

[Anonymous No.12381235]

>>12379938
Well you show you're concerned about self-evident empirical prices which is the entire point of the obscure presentation of Marx to emphasis things aren't what they appear. If you weren't a total idiot you would of said aggregate demand instead of just "demand", actual spending is all that matters strictly speaking and is the only "information" possibly signalled... just dreaming of something has no economic effect. In conventional theory wages [wow, demand] are conceived of as a cost of production. Trying to claim one is a "demand" or "supply" theory is strange. An emphasis on cost isn't what's special, it's just the theory of aggregate profit which conventional theory has no coherent theory of. Just transferring objects around doesn't create any social surplus, a surplus emerges in the production process never on markets.
Labour is the source of value but if you understand it as being embodied you're on the wrong track, it's the process of social reproduction. Machinery transfers value but it doesn't generate anything new ever, it's set into motion. Rent is a creation of law and just redistribution.

[Anonymous No.12382040]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9eYvsfR18s&

[Anonymous No.12382075]

>>12379644
Reality is ideal not material

[Anonymous No.12382079]

>>12379842
Can you expand further on what Stirner and Bakunin said?

[Anonymous No.12382084]

I have not read his work so I can not rightfully say.

[Anonymous No.12382088]

>please believe this random comic depicting thing I don't like in negative light

[Anonymous No.12382089]

>>12379644
I's not possible to have everyone maintain the same income while also increasing production. the capitalist needs to earn more in order to invest it into the business itself so that it continues to grow. though today's communism is a far cry from yesterday's.

[Anonymous No.12382097]

>>12382088
Based phrenology

[Anonymous No.12382114]

>>12382089
There is no income under communism

[Anonymous No.12382126]

>>12382114
well how the fuck did they keep up in the industrial age and the cold war?

[Anonymous No.12382131]

>>12382126
communism hasn't happened yet

[Anonymous No.12382178]

>>12379770
>Labour theory of value
theory of supply and demand is better because it explains and predicts more accurately more scenarios
also LTV can't explain why a napkin written by Picasso is worth millions, or inflation
>dialectics
if you mean hegelian dialectics, that's not his, and it's a very broad thing that can be applied to basically anything as long as you're imaginative enough to find a way to force it, so it can't really be refuted.

[Anonymous No.12382219]

>>12379644
das juden

[Anonymous No.12382417]

>>12380398
He is right, though

[Anonymous No.12382436]

>>12379842

Among many refutations, labor is also categorically Subjective. I can write this reply with minimal strain. However, its value - by Marx's own definition - would not increase were it written by an idiot exerting tremendous effort, nor is it diminished by me exerting almost none.

[Anonymous No.12382560]

>>12379770
>I want an actual debunking
You know 80% of this board doesn't even read, right? And the other 20% is mostly retarded /pol/ kids

[Anonymous No.12382599]

>>12381028
>some people on the internet are weird
wtf I love trump now

[Anonymous No.12382605]

>>12381112
>wall of text
The right can't meme

[Anonymous No.12382612]

>>12382178
>also LTV can't explain why a napkin written by Picasso is worth millions
it's not worth millions, that's the whole point. Capitalism makes up fake values for things

[Anonymous No.12382639]

>>12382178
Have you read Anwar Shaikh’s paper on the empirical validity of the LTV?

Iirc things like art objects, or basically anything where an individual, unique object is being bought and sold is outside the grasp of his theory. The reality is that nearly all production isn’t of that sort of thing, so it’s not exactly an important exception, or one that causes a whole lot of problems for the system as a whole.

You don’t really need an big theory to understand an art auction.

[Anonymous No.12382652]

Imagine trusting someone who never had a job to decide how society should work

[Anonymous No.12382768]

>>12382639
Why would I follow an obsolete rule that has exceptions due to it's incompleteness, when we have another that manages to explain those exceptions?
From a scientific point of view, there's no reason to believe the LTV over the law of supply and demand, and since Marx put a strong emphasis on the idea of "scientific socialism" I find it kind of paradoxial that his followers would blindly follow an outdated theory that's been outdated for a century.

Of course marxism must fight the law of supply and demand, because you can't have a materialistic conception of history while believing that economy is altered by the subjective perceptions of people, but that's just one of the reasons why traditional marxism doesn't hold up.

[Anonymous No.12382815]

>>12379644
Self-interest is natural to man. Better to utilize that force in a clear and direct way than try to sublimate into a system that isn't actually any better. Marx is a fat brainlet who churned out tomes because the more he worked at writing the longer he got to eat.

[Anonymous No.12382919]

>>12381124
your second critique was that market prices are determined by demand. If the LTV doesn't claim otherwise, how is that a criticism of the theory?

[Anonymous No.12382929]

>>12380395
oh look, a tripfag thinking his opinion matters

[Anonymous No.12382996]

>>12380012
>value=pricing

[Anonymous No.12383004]

>>12382178
>theory of supply and demand is better because it explains and predicts more accurately more scenarios
the LTV isn't at odds with supply and demand. it doesn't attempt to explain the same things as supply and demand, so how could supply and demand have a comparatively more accurate predictive ability?
>also LTV can't explain why a napkin written by Picasso is worth millions.
that isn't a freely reproducible good. the LTV doesn't purport to explain such goods.
>or inflation
how?
>I can write this reply with minimal strain. However, its value - by Marx's own definition - would not increase were it written by an idiot exerting tremendous effort, nor is it diminished by me exerting almost none.
value is determined by socially necessary labor time, meaning the average amount of time taken by a worker of average skill and productivity. so the existence of less and more productive workers is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.12383017]

Would a piece of wood be worth more if it was cut with an axe rather than a chainsaw?

[Anonymous No.12383033]

Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, by Mises.

[Anonymous No.12383045]

>>12383004
last point meant for: >>12382436

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.12383051]

>>12380154
Vouchers have been long before even Marx. Robert Owen’s time.

>>12382079
Basically Marx was pro state socialism and they were very much not. Turns out their trepidation’s were well founded.

[Anonymous No.12383084]

>>12383017
no. the value of either piece of wood would be determined by the socially necessary amount of labor-time required to reproduce it, which would vary depending on whether axes or chainsaws were generalized in the industry at that time.

[Anonymous No.12383087]

>>12379910
Fuck you, you know nothing, it's easy to say "oh wow, communism is the shit" if you live in a place that doesn't have to deal with the aftermath of communism on a daily basis

[Anonymous No.12383097]

>>12383004
>the LTV isn't at odds with supply and demand. it doesn't attempt to explain the same things as supply and demand, so how could supply and demand have a comparatively more accurate predictive ability?
The LTV gives a measurement of the value of goods.
Whether it's a moral suggestion or a literal value (as Marx wanted and pretended it to be) doesn't change the fact that it's at odds with supply and demand, since it gives an entirely different formula to calculate the value of goods.
>that isn't a freely reproducible good. the LTV doesn't purport to explain such goods.
I don't understand where you're getting this condition from when the first ever enunciation of the LTV says:
>The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it.

But even if we assume you're correct and LTV only applies to freely reproducible goods (which I don't know exactly what it is, goods that don't require a special skill or talent to be manufactured?) that's still not a good defense because supply and demand manages to explain the value of these items, on top of the rest that the LTV applied to.

>how?
Inflation is a general increase on the price of goods. This can have multiple causes, but the one relevant here is inflation caused by an increase in the currency in circulation.

In that case, the value of goods has increased because since people has more money, they can afford more of them. It's a direct result of supply and demand at work: the demand increases because the people is wealthier, so the prices of the goods increase even though the manufacturing process is completely the same.

[Anonymous No.12383206]

>>12383097
>Whether it's a moral suggestion
it's not, the theory doesn't make an normative claims.
>doesn't change the fact that it's at odds with supply and demand, since it gives an entirely different formula to calculate the value of goods.
it sounds like you're equivocating on "value" here. "value" in the LTV doesn't mean the same thing it does in supply and demand theories. the former is concerned with natural prices, the latter is concerned with market prices.
>But even if we assume you're correct and LTV only applies to freely reproducible goods (which I don't know exactly what it is, goods that don't require a special skill or talent to be manufactured?)
freely reproducible goods are just goods that competitors can enter the market of production for. a Picasso work cannot be reproduced by competitors, obviously. non-freely reproducible goods don't have natural prices, so the theory doesn't purport to explain them.
>that's still not a good defense because supply and demand manages to explain the value of these items, on top of the rest that the LTV applied to.
again, supply and demand explain the MARKET PRICE of such goods. Marx doesn't deny that. but value is distinct from market price in the LTV. these types of goods are examples of goods that have a market price without having a value.
>In that case, the value of goods has increased because since people has more money, they can afford more of them. It's a direct result of supply and demand at work: the demand increases because the people is wealthier, so the prices of the goods increase even though the manufacturing process is completely the same.
you're just talking about a factor that can distort market prices. Marx recognizes such factors. don't see how this has any bearing on the LTV.

[Anonymous No.12383256]

>>12383004
>>12383045

But average labor is determined by individuals' labor. This thread would've been awful without my participation. If Marx were to compensate us, how am I to interpret the fact that my income could have been much bigger were it not determined by an average that includes the likes of them: >>12381097 >>12380931 >>12382088 ? Moreover, how should the mediocre posters, who have much fewer alternatives than me, interpret it? How would it be better than Capitalist injustices?

[Anonymous No.12383280]

>>12383256
>But average labor is determined by individuals' labor.
that's right.
>This thread would've been awful without my participation. If Marx were to compensate us, how am I to interpret the fact that my income could have been much bigger were it not determined by an average that includes the likes of them.
I think you're misunderstanding. the LTV isn't a prescriptive theory suggesting how much certain workers should be compensated.

[Anonymous No.12383290]

>>12379770
The labour theory of value doesn't take into account alternative cost, for one. The worker isn't getting the surplus value stolen from him, he enters a voluntary agreement with the employee to forfeit that in exchange for not having to take any risk with his own money if the product doesn't sell, he still gets paid for his work; he also gets paid now instead of later, when the product has been sold (which in some cases can take years from production), and as we all know, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow (hence interest rates).

[Anonymous No.12383320]

LTV MAKES SENSE
WITHOUT LABOR THERE IS NO COMMODITY
IT IS NOT A THEORY OF PRICE
IF YOU DO NOT PRODUCE SOMETHING IT IS NOT PRODUCED

[Anonymous No.12383328]

>>12383290
>The worker isn't getting the surplus value stolen from him, he enters a voluntary agreement with the employee to forfeit that in exchange for not having to take any risk with his own money if the product doesn't sell, he still gets paid for his work; he also gets paid now instead of later, when the product has been sold (which in some cases can take years from production), and as we all know, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow (hence interest rates).
this is irrelevant to whether or not surplus value is the source of profit. it doesn't matter who "deserves" surplus value, or if the worker consents to forfeiting it. the theory isn't making a moral argument.

[Anonymous No.12383343]

>>12379644
Ernst Junger proved that Achilleus CAN exist in a modern battlefield.
Don't care about his ec*nomics.

[Anonymous No.12383378]

>>12383206
>it sounds like you're equivocating on "value" here. "value" in the LTV doesn't mean the same thing it does in supply and demand theories. the former is concerned with natural prices, the latter is concerned with market prices.
there's no "natural" prices to anything, there's not a material characteristic of a commodity item where its price is stored

>again, supply and demand explain the MARKET PRICE of such goods. Marx doesn't deny that
The theory of supply and demand didn't even exist when Marx wrote Das Kapital, of course he didn't get to deny it.

>but value is distinct from market price in the LTV.
I literally posted the definition of LTV, it has no such distinction.


>The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it.

[Anonymous No.12383393]

>>12379662
fpbp

[Anonymous No.12383407]

>>12383280

I mean...if the question of effort in and of the Subject, and its relation to time and productivity, or lack there of, is ignored, then what distinguishes LTV from its many Capitalist analogues? Nepotist Theory of Entry, Motion Theory of Productivity, Social Theory of Promotion, etc?

[Anonymous No.12383425]

>>12383378
>there's no "natural" prices to anything, there's not a material characteristic of a commodity item where its price is stored
I'm using "natural price" in the way Smith used it: a long-run average price. what might be called "equilibrium price" now. a center-of-gravity around which market prices fluctuate due to supply and demand. it has nothing to do with any "material characteristic" of the commodity.
>The theory of supply and demand didn't even exist when Marx wrote Das Kapital, of course he didn't get to deny it.
this is incorrect. Smith, Ricardo, and later Marx talk explicitly of the influence of supply and demand.
>I literally posted the definition of LTV, it has no such distinction.
what you posted certainly is not the "definition" of the LTV. I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. are you suggesting that Marx sees no distinction between value and market price?
>>12383407
>I mean...if the question of effort in and of the Subject, and its relation to time and productivity, or lack there of, is ignored
it's not "ignored." it's all taken into account with SNLT. that's the point of averaging these things.
>then what distinguishes LTV from its many Capitalist analogues? Nepotist Theory of Entry, Motion Theory of Productivity, Social Theory of Promotion, etc?
honestly not sure what you're suggesting here.

[Anonymous No.12383509]

What (or who?) determines 'social necessity' and how is it different from the 'demand' in the supply and demand theory?
What is a good book to learn about Marx' theory? I don't think that I want to read the capital.

[Anonymous No.12383528]

>>12379644
Profits didn't go down, revolutions didn't happen in industrialized countries, his whole thinking is teleological.

[Anonymous No.12383543]

>>12379848
INB4 some lefty tries to equate accidental deaths from hunger or disease (which would occur under any system) under capitalism to deliberate weaponized famine and mass purges

[Anonymous No.12383544]

>>12383328
If there are alternative costs not taken into account, than there is no surplus value, as the worker is receiving compensation both financially (visible) and as risk avoidance (invisible)

[Anonymous No.12383546]

>>12380137
You really misunderstood what he wrote. Stop tripfagging.

[Anonymous No.12383569]

>>12383509
socially necessary labor time just means the average amount of time it takes a worker of average skill and productivity to produce a good at a given time and place. it doesn't seek to replace "demand" as defined in supply and demand theory; the terms are referring to two different concepts. if you don't want to read Capital, I suggest the shorter works "Wage-Labor and Capital" and "Value, Price, and Profit" (they're usually published together). though you're not going to get a sufficient understanding of Marx's economic theory without reading Capital.
>>12383528
>Profits didn't go down
Marx's prediction is that the RATE OF PROFIT will tend to decline as a secular trend during long-wave periods of expansion. you'd have to provide evidence disconfirming this.
>revolutions didn't happen in industrialized countries
fair enough, though he didn't predict this should happen by 2019.
>his whole thinking is teleological.
not sure what you mean by this.
>>12383544
again, you're speaking in ethical terms. you have to demonstrate how profit does not originate from surplus-value, if you want to disprove the theory.

[Anonymous No.12383602]

Reality.

[Anonymous No.12383624]

>>12383425
>in the way Smith used it
To Marx, "natural" prize was this:
>the market prices of commodities will correspond with their natural prices, that is to say, with their values as determined by the respective quantities of labor required for their production.
The natural price of an object to him was no median, but that of the LTV when supply and demand was balanced.
Yeah, Marx mentioned supply and demand, just seen that. So the LTV goes from outdated to simply needless, since he's implying that in a balanced market the price of goods will be that of the socially necessary labour, which is not true.

By the way the definition I posted is the one by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations.

[Anonymous No.12383627]

>>12383569
>I suggest the shorter works "Wage-Labor and Capital" and "Value, Price, and Profit" (they're usually published together). though you're not going to get a sufficient understanding of Marx's economic theory without reading Capital.
Is there any point in reading secondary literature? I don't have much background in Philosophy or economy, or should I just start with the greeks?

[Anonymous No.12383652]

Saying that capital objectifies/alienates people is an easy system for seeing people as alienated objects. False consciousness privileges gatekeeper way of thinking. Economic monism is reductionistic.

[Anonymous No.12383670]

>>12383425

I think SNLT is about the world affecting the commodities which in turn affect the labor which maybe affects the Subject, according to Marx. Whereas I am talking about Subjective hypostasis leading up to the labor, which can be ignored but not "averaged".

[Anonymous No.12383681]

>>12383624
>To Marx, "natural" prize was this:
>>the market prices of commodities will correspond with their natural prices, that is to say, with their values as determined by the respective quantities of labor required for their production.
>The natural price of an object to him was no median, but that of the LTV when supply and demand was balanced.
right, this is also how Smith used it. not sure what you mean by "no median." we should expect that, in the long-run, the average price should roughly correspond to the equilibrium price.
>So the LTV goes from outdated to simply needless, since he's implying that in a balanced market the price of goods will be that of the socially necessary labour, which is not true.
you haven't demonstrated how this isn't true.
>By the way the definition I posted is the one by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations.
Marx has a distinct labor theory of value from Smith.
>>12383627
Ernest Mandel's "Marxist Economic Theory" is a helpful supplement. you also should read some of the empirical literature testing the LTV's predictions (by the likes of Shaikh, Kliman, etc.), but, again, ideally after having read Capital. starting with the Greeks won't really help you understand Marx any better, though it will help you understand the history of political economy. Smith and Ricardo are more relevant prerequisite readings for Marx's work.
>>12383670
>I think SNLT is about the world affecting the commodities which in turn affect the labor which maybe affects the Subject, according to Marx.
you'd have to expand on this for me to asses the accuracy of what you think SNLT to be.
>Whereas I am talking about Subjective hypostasis leading up to the labor, which can be ignored but not "averaged".
what non-ethical bearing do these things have on the LTV?

[Anonymous No.12383752]

>>12383670
>>12383681

Since I can work or not work, but work can neither me nor not me, I am the ultimate cause of my work, or lack thereof, and so is everyone else relative to their work. Though I would eventually face terrible consequences if I stopped working altogether, nothing can qualitatively force me to work. Pretending otherwise is neither rational nor moral, least of all as part of a "Utopia". At least Capitalism is ambiguous in this regard. Marx is simply tyrannical.

[Anonymous No.12383776]

>>12383752
I don't see how any of this addresses the LTV. are you under the impression that it proposes that people should be forced to work?

[Anonymous No.12383807]

>>12379644
if you cant own capital, then no one will bother building it, and all of civilization suffers.

[Anonymous No.12383839]

>>12383776

Yes? He can barely contain his rage when talking about hobos and such, the "lumpenproletariat". He makes Reagan sound like a queer.

[Anonymous No.12383858]

>>12383839
the LTV isn't a prescriptive theory. so regardless of whether or not Marx though people should be forced to work, it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

[Anonymous No.12383891]

>>12383858

My impression was that Marx is most prescriptive in general.

[Anonymous No.12383933]

>>12383891
Marx's economic work, including the entirety of Capital, is descriptive, not prescriptive. I can't speak to his sociological work, in which I'm less well-versed.

[Anonymous No.12383937]

>>12383004
>that isn't a freely reproducible good. the LTV doesn't purport to explain such goods.
It actually applies to them. According to the LTV, the labour-content of a commodity determines its value, and the value is the equilibrium around which supply and demand fluctuates. This means that that the LTV doesn't negate S&D and thus you can easily explain phenomenon with the LTV by saying it is in low supply.
>>12383602
>reality
>posts picture with a Marxist argument

[Anonymous No.12383958]

>>12383937
>According to the LTV, the labour-content of a commodity determines its value, and the value is the equilibrium around which supply and demand fluctuates. This means that that the LTV doesn't negate S&D
that's right. I never said that the LTV negates supply and demand. non-freely reproducible goods don't have equilibrium prices; the theory doesn't purport to explain them.

[Anonymous No.12383960]

Read Spengler, Fukuyama and all sorts of anthropology.

I don't have any straight answer, just throwing books around, there are other worthy graba historical theories that deserve to be looked at.

I'm serious about Fukuyama btw, everyone seems to think he is some idiot but his ideas are not easily thrown out and if you are a Marxist that gets nothing from theories that are like Fukuyama's then you aren't serious.

[Anonymous No.12384019]

>>12383627
It’s not secondary literature. Both of those books are by Marx.

[Anonymous No.12384050]

>>12383958
Even if prices are not in equilibrium, the LTV shows what are they fluctuating around so it kind of explains them.

[Anonymous No.12384058]

>>12384050
no, I'm not saying that non-freely reproducible goods never REACH an equilibrium price in reality (almost no commodity does); I'm saying that they don't even have theoretical equilibrium prices.

[Anonymous No.12384126]

>>12383681
>you haven't demonstrated how this isn't true.
Yeah I haven't. I've been reading and I've reach the conclusion that I've misunderstood the LTV.
I still don't believe it, but I can't prove that it's false, and it seems nobody has done it so far.
Thanks for your posts.

[Anonymous No.12384135]

*COUTH*COUTH*
AHERM !

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.12384140]

>>12383960
But, anon. He is an idiot

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.12384160]

>>12383602
This was when he was a Marxist?
I wonder what happened

>>12383807
Those tits are real. The value of money is arbitrary.
We can do better than this ancient idol, this talisman of trash

[Anonymous No.12384520]

marxism is a spook

[Anonymous No.12384589]

>>12379842
Bakunin was a psycho.

[Anonymous No.12384677]

>>12382599
Obsessed.