/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15283132]

>Reading Capital
>Everything Marx is saying is true
Holy fucking shit, what the fuck. I was never a Marxist but now it's abundantly clear that Marx is correct about everything.

[Anonymous No.15283137]

>>15283132
what are some things he said that are true

[Anonymous No.15283146]

>>15283132
If Marx was alive today he would study technique. Get with the times.

[Anonymous No.15283179]

>>15283137
20 yards of linen = 1 coat

This is a universal truth

[Anonymous No.15283327]

>>15283179
Holy shit, you actually did read it.

[Anonymous No.15283337]

>>15283179
Marx doesn't say this

[Anonymous No.15283339]

>das it nigga. Das Kapital.

[Anonymous No.15283399]

>Let's say we have two commodities, such as a coat and 10 yards of linen, and let's say the coat is double the value of the linen. So, if 10 yards of linen = W, the coat = 2W.

[Anonymous No.15283460]

>>15283132
>Read the Law of Value
>Don't immediately throw the book in the trash where it belongs

Big lmao. Surplus Value as a concept is so low IQ that it basically discredits all economic Leftism by itself.

[Anonymous No.15283478]

>>15283460
let's hear your critique

[Anonymous No.15283524]

>>15283399
What he actually says:
>It might seem that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labor expended to produce it, it would be the more valuable the more unskillful and lazy the worker who produced it, because he would need more time to complete the article. However, the labor that forms the substance of value is equal human labor, the expenditure of identical human labor power.
>What exclusively determines the magnitude of the value of any article is therefore the amount of labor socially necessary, or the labor time socially necessary for its production. the individual commodity counts here only as an average sample of its kind. Commodities which contain equal quantities of labor, or which can be produced in the same time, have therefor the same value
If you're a shit worker who takes twice as long to make something as someone else, you only make half as much. Marx is literally a Darwinist in this way.

[Anonymous No.15283529]

>>15283132
>blocks your path

[Anonymous No.15283552]

>>15283524
>However, the labor that forms the substance of value is equal human labor, the expenditure of identical human labor power.
How does he justify this statement. He just said that labor is not equal and then he says that you can still measure value in 'identical human labor power'

[Anonymous No.15283577]

>>15283552
"Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value. "

[Anonymous No.15283597]

>>15283577
>which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units.
????
>>15283577
>Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such;
But each of them does not have that character. The 'average labor power of society' is a complete abstraction that has nothing to do with any of the individual laborers' efforts

[Anonymous No.15283614]

>>15283597
>The 'average labor power of society' is a complete abstraction that has nothing to do with any of the individual laborers' efforts
Yes, this is specifically stated.

[Anonymous No.15283619]

>>15283614
Then what the fuck is he doing?
>counts here as one homogeneous mass
It doesn't. He just said why it doesn't, and now he's without any justification saying that he' still going to pretend it does.

[Anonymous No.15283696]

>>15283597
>>15283619
No, he's saying that the value of producing an object is equivalent to the best means of the labor it takes to produce it.
It if takes 20 minutes to produce something, then that this is worth 20 minutes of production, it does not matter if it takes you 30 minutes to produce it.

[Anonymous No.15283708]

Imagine writing a 2,000 page screed just to justify being a NEET
Talk about insecurity

[Anonymous No.15283711]

happy birthday

[Anonymous No.15283716]

>>15283696
No he is inventing a wholly imaginary category called 'average labor ability' which ignores both the varying abilities of the laborers, which he just mentioned, and also their incentives to work with more or less effort, and other factors influencing their performance. This is not a static category you could sum with some measurument of everyone in a society, and even if you could, you still couldn't just allot the average ability to every single person after having summed it. Makes literally no sense, you would have to send specific people out to do specific tasks, and their ability to do these tasks would not correspond to this average ability on any given task he has measured. It makes literally no sense.

[Anonymous No.15283734]

>>15283716
what the fuck are you talking about?
the socially necessary labour time is established impersonally by market competition in free markets, it's not set by any individual producer

[Anonymous No.15283944]

>wool
>wheat
>linen
>iron
what the fuck was his problem?

[Anonymous No.15283963]

>>15283944
no yeezyes

[Anonymous No.15283996]

Someone tell this man that footnotes shouldn't be a page long

[Anonymous No.15284000]

>>15283716
it implies total social value which has average value in different industries but whose rate of profit equalizes, it means value is quantum of whole of economic relations, not just of this country or company
value is an abstraction due to money-capital that abstracts the qualities of the commodity in the market

[Anonymous No.15284150]

>>15283339
Das rite

[Anonymous No.15284157]

>>15283716
Are you seriously complaining that macro-economics aren't the same as micro-economics?
Come on, anon. He's talking about the entire system and generalized phenomena within it, this should be obvious.

[Anonymous No.15284158]

>>15283524
Yeah...no. Facts remain facts no matter how strongly you 'feel' otherwise. A simple geometrical illustration will make this clear. Let's say we want to calculate and compare the areas of rectilinear figures, so we decompose them into triangles. Obviously, the area of the triangle itself is expressed by something totally different from its visible figure, namely, by half the product of the base multiplied by the altitude. In the same way the exchange values of commodities must be capable of being expressed in terms of something common to them all, of which thing they represent a greater or less quantity.

[Anonymous No.15284187]

Imagine still caring about "the economic system". Capitalism won, move on and reform.

[Anonymous No.15284222]

>>15284158
>>15283399
fucking kek you already made my day anons and it's just roughly past midnight here

[Anonymous No.15284629]

>>15284158
lmfao

[Anonymous No.15284659]

>>15283132
It was a good hypothesis for when he wrote it. However, data shows that capitalism seems to pull everyone upwards instead of making the rich richer at expense of the poor. Battle won based on evidence, fair and square. Now get with the times.

[Anonymous No.15284673]

>>15284659
This is, objectively, not true. Data and history ACTUALLY shows that capitalism causes boom and bust cycles in the market with the rich accumulating a vast majority of resources and then the economy crashing.

[Anonymous No.15284687]

>>15284673
le central bank face

[Anonymous No.15284813]

>>15283524
This is pretty silly a conception - that labor determines the value of a thing.

In part, a supplier is limited by how difficult a thing is to produce, which defines how costly it is to produce at some level of technological advancement.

In reality, however, the value of an article is defined by how much people want it. i.e., how much they are willing to pay.

[Anonymous No.15284822]

>>15284813
anon, please, this is entry level criticism of Marx. stop embarrassing yourself and do some reading. Marx never claimed such a thing

[Anonymous No.15284959]

>>15283708
Marx lived off his capitalist relatives, Engels, and often borrowed money he never intended to return. He cheated on his wife, he failed at everything, and was an overgrown child that went to college to fuck around. His legacy has been the countless deaths. Engles at least published factual works like how the factory conditions were. Marx also had numerous calculation errors in capital. He was a huge neet.

[Anonymous No.15284999]

>>15283146
>technique
what technique? this is vague.

Was Marx this vague? Smith wasn't, that's for damn sure.

[Anonymous No.15285012]

>>15283132
He was right until Freud. The notion of the 'unconscious' problematises the rational worker-subject at the center of Marxism

[Anonymous No.15285013]

>>15284813
scarcity is already implied in the price-system. value regulates the dynamics of price

[Anonymous No.15285175]

>>15284813
>In reality, however, the value of an article is defined by how much people want it. i.e., how much they are willing to pay.
Yes, Marx talks about this, it's called the "exchange value" and not the "use value".
Read Marx

[Anonymous No.15285315]

>>15283132
He was right about most things. But he still got btfo by saint Max

[Anonymous No.15285340]

>>15284673
Not even him, but you can't read.

[Anonymous No.15285381]

>>15285175
Don't make us play this shell game for the thousandth time. To Marx, SNLT is the determinant of value in the last instance. It's the third thing.

[Anonymous No.15285471]

>>15283708
>Imagine writing a 2,000 page screed just to justify being a NEET
Even if his ideas are retarded you kinda got admire his dedication to NEETdom.

[Anonymous No.15285559]

>>15285381
time is expressed in money as in variable capital or wages, wages have an exploitation rate in its relation to constant capital. that means work determines value. but value isn't price. value isn't really deduceable. whereas in the marginalist interpretation price ultimately can't be deduced. so it's the same problem. but ltv solves it by understanding the mechanics behind circulation which tie it to the prodction process, and understanding the basic mechanics. so that labor is a case of praxis regulating price in an anonymous system, the market which is ultimately foreign to the worker.

>you should consider yourself defeated

[Anonymous No.15285589]

>>15285559
the abolition of value as estrangement is the abolition of scarcity, qua price system.

The Neets will inherit the world

[Anonymous No.15285590]

>>15283708
>Imagine writing a 2,000 page screed just to justify being a NEET
thats actually based af

[Anonymous No.15285711]

>>15283132
Oh, come on, at least try.
>Marx
>true

LOLIRL!

[Anonymous No.15285814]

>>15285559
I could be out buying groceries, but I guess I'm doing this shit again.

Not really responding to the point I was attempting to illustrate, but those are certainly some assertions. Actually, if you placed a negative sign in front of you're post, I might be inclined to agree with you. Since you used a picture of Kolakowski, I'll just let him answer for me.

[Anonymous No.15285824]

>>15285814

[Anonymous No.15285836]

>>15285824

[Anonymous No.15285848]

>>15285836

[Anonymous No.15285858]

>>15285848

[Anonymous No.15285876]

>>15285858

[Anonymous No.15285886]

>>15285814
*YOUR, FUCK

[Anonymous No.15286428]

>>15285711
It's not bait just because you're low IQ

[Anonymous No.15286696]

I was supposed to read this shit for my final class of college. Got through half the first chapter and its retarded drivel. Nothing but gay kike semantics. Fuck marx and fuck that book. 700+ pages of shit

[Anonymous No.15286726]

>>15286696
want to explain why? or are you just going to say it's shit without giving reason?

[Anonymous No.15286749]

>>15286726
Yes, I am. Its pseud trash. How am i supposed to follow 140 page chapters on the equation of surplus labor value or whatever the fuck. No i dont give a shit fuck u marx. His sections on class dynamics are okay. Its the purely economic stuff i cant stand. And im an economics major