/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16024617]

>Filtered by Capital Chapter 1
Lol

[Anonymous No.16024668]

>>16024617
Bohm-Bawerk wasn't wrong. And say that to Sombart, Mallock or Mises and see what happens

Also if you read Capital you'd know that no one gets filtered until chapter 3

[Anonymous No.16024680]

>>16024668
Redpill me on the austrian school

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16024686]

>>16024617
That guy’s show sucked.

[Anonymous No.16024695]

>>16024668
He got filtered by the second page where use value & exchange value are mentioned

[Anonymous No.16024756]

>>16024680
Austrian school honestly is honestly just the opening act, the real fun begins with Kolakowski or even neo-Marxists themselves (the efforts by Gramsci, Althusser etc to "rescue" base-superstructure are richer than any critique, and then you can dig into the British Marxists like Raymond Williams and E.P. Thompson who essentially gave up on base-superstructure because it could no longer be defended).

The key thing to remember about Capital was its impeccable timing; it came about right when Europeans were essentially beating the game, when religion was visibly failing, and offered an all-encompassing understanding of human affairs - what Tom Wolfe called a cosmogony, or theory of everything. In the 1860's the principle of the conservation of energy and the laws governing its transformation were, it appeared, close to providing a complete explanation of the multiplicity of natural phenomena. Studies of the cellular structure of organisms gave promise of the discovery of a single system of laws applying to all basic organic phenomena. Darwin's theory of evolution afforded a general historical schema of the development of living creatures. Fechner's studies opened the way to the quantitative measurement of mental phenomena. The day seemed close at hand when the unity of nature, hidden beneath the chaotic wealth of its diversity, would be laid bare to human view. So Marxism is nothing if not a perfect example of 19th century scientism; a perfect example of a nuance trap - the conceptual framework which attempts to explain too much, so much that it eventually encompasses every aspect of the world external to it which might hold some hope of falsifying it.

[Anonymous No.16026118]

Austrian critique of physics:

>M: Some things are more massive than other things, but to claim this, we need some fundamental measurement of mass for their comparison to be meaningful at all. So we can say that large mass can be understood as a construction of many small masses, grams, energy, or abstract fundamental particles. This is necessary for us to say some objects are more massive than others. As Aristotle wrote: two things must be commensurable if they are to be comparable...
>BB: HA! This is all nonsense. Prove to me that the Sun is larger than the Earth
>M: It just is, it's more massive when measured in terms of solar mass.
>BB: NO you can't use solar mass, how many fundamental particles greater is the Sun than the Earth?
>M: I can't answer that, but it's unnecessary to do so, because simple-mass is a postulate that allows the comparison of objects' mass
>BB: You can't answer. Well it appears that the entire Marxian system of physics collapses. You can't claim mass exists, and that some objects are more massive than others, without a direct accounting of how many fundamental mass objects makes up each object. Therefore we can't say some objects are larger than others, only that the heavens have determined that some objects appear more bigly than others. This is determined by cosmic forces beyond our control or understanding.

[Anonymous No.16026126]

>>16024668
This.

Marx was teleoplexically refuted by Capital aka Nick Land.

[Anonymous No.16026144]

>>16026118
>>M: Some labour is more complex than other labour, but to claim this, we need some fundamental measurement of labour complexity for their comparison to be meaningful at all. So we can say that complex labour can be understood as a construction of simple labour, or abstract labour. This is necessary for us to say some labour is more complex than other labour. As Aristotle wrote: two things must be commensurable if they are to be comparable...
>>BB: HA! This is all nonsense. Prove to me that a brain surgery is more complex than street sweeping!
>>M: It just is, it's more complex when measured in terms educational requirements, technical complexity, and-
>>BB: NO, how many more units of simple labour is brain surgery than street sweeping?
>>M: I can't answer that, but it's unnecessary to do so, because simple-labour is a postulate that allows the comparison of heterogeneous labour and its varying complexity..
>>BB: You can't answer. Well it appears that the entire Marxian system of economics collapses. You can't claim complex labour exists, and that some labour is more complex than others, without a direct accounting of how many fundamental simple-labour units makes up each type of labour. Therefore we can't say some labour is more complex than others, only that the market has determined that some labour appears more valuable than others. This is determined by market forces beyond our control or understanding.