[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.00 MB, 1280x1500, Karl_Marx.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18202773 No.18202773[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Has anyone here unironically read Marx?

>> No.18202972

>>18202773
I did in college. I'm unemplyed now btw.

>> No.18202981

no
nobody has ever read marx
not even the marxists themselves

>> No.18202983

>>18202773
no and I never will

>> No.18203051

No. But I am planning on reading him

>> No.18203083

I read like half of Kapital as a teenager before I got bored and went out with my friends and forgot to pick the book up again

>> No.18203114

>>18202773
Yes, but only the marx-engels reader. Economics is boring

>> No.18203145

>>18202773
Marx is outdated and problematic, real leftism is found in the works of Robert DiAngelo.

>> No.18203147

>>18203145
claps

>> No.18203157

>>18202773
yes

>> No.18203159

>>18202773

I was going to before remembering what his fans do to religion. I don't want any government that forces it citizens to go atheist regardless of religion and is incapable of taking criticism.

>> No.18203166

No one here reads
It's all LARP and polshit

>> No.18203181

>>18202773
Yes. I read Capital and the Manifesto.

>> No.18203262

>>18202773
i've read some but im a dum dum

>> No.18203369

read all three vols of capital, critique of gotha programme, some engels work as well. have read lots of secondary lit on marx has well by roemer, cohen and the other analytical marxists

>> No.18203380

>>18203369
>>18203181
what do you think the weakest part of marxism is?

>> No.18203392

>>18202773
Yes stop asking

>> No.18203401

>>18202773
I've only read the manifesto, and I didn't like it much. I'm not into communist ideas, but the Conquest of Bread is better written and in my opinion more entertaining if you're into ironic reading.

>> No.18203418

>>18203380
the atrocities done in the name of marxism is the weakest part of it as a whole, but as far as the theory goes believing in labor theory of value or the tendency for the rate of profit to fall is pretty silly. the rest of marx’s analysis is pretty spot on however.

>> No.18203427

I'm currently reading Capital, started reading it on Marx's birthday by pure coincidence. Haven't read enough of it to form much of an opinion of it yet, besides the fact that it's quite interesting. Give me a couple of weeks and I might make a thread to try and summarise and give my thoughts on the ideas Marx proposes.

>> No.18203442

>>18203418
>labor theory of value
Why do you think that's silly? Haven't read much Marx but from a very cursory view of it, it does seem that labor is undervalued in the grand scheme of things, or rather that the ownership of the means is overvalued, therefore making an argument for higher wages and higher corporate taxes above a certain threshold.
I'm not a Marxist at all btw but I would imagine a Marxist would be for all those things.

>> No.18203474

>>18202773
Value, Price, and Profit is a phenomenal work

>> No.18203483

>>18203427
We already have Capital threads daily so please don't. Thank you

>> No.18203501

>>18203483
I rarely come to /lit/ so haven't seen them. That said, I'll take your advice and just post in one of the existing threads instead.

>> No.18203514

>>18203418
Is the tendency for the rate of profit to fall silly? When I took microeconomics in college our prof taught us something similar

>> No.18203520

Yes, its not so bad. Just don’t read The Capital

>> No.18203521

>>18203442
the issues with the labor theory is that labor is a variable. Its not a single value or coefficient.

>> No.18203533
File: 85 KB, 305x374, Bohm.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18203533

>>18203442
This man has the answers you seek.

>> No.18203554

>>18203521
>Its not a single value
But it is in many cases. The minimum wage is an artificial value assigned to virtually all labor, any further increase is only incremental to a fixed floor and all other wages are viewed comparatively, consumer price indexes are actively interacting with that same value and vice versa. I think it's much more complex than to warrant a simple rejection of it, even though it seems Marx himself wasn't too big on labor value.

>>18203533
Thanks. I'd be happy to have your input as well.

>> No.18204385

>>18203514
No it's correct. It's equivalent to what keynes called the liquidity trap

>> No.18204418

>>18202773
>Has anyone here unironically read Marx?
All readings are ironic. Some are just unaware of that.

So no: it is impossible to unironically read Marx, therefore nobody has ever unironically read Marx, therefore I've just spoiled The Importance of Being Ernest.

>> No.18204428

>>18203418
Marx did not have a labor theory of value.

>> No.18204465

>>18204428
Okay so the alliquot homogenised skill-modified exertion-modified socially-necessary social-cost-of-labour-power-being-arbitrary labour-power theory of value that Marx held while critiquing bourgeois political economy and the actual political economy of capital, as a method Marx presumed would allow actual living labour to abolish that relationship.

Some people here have read Capital mate. Stop acting coy and put genuine theses.

>> No.18204472

>>18203501
post whatever u want buddy

>> No.18204755
File: 24 KB, 400x400, albini.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18204755

>>18204385
is that true? i don't know much about keynes theories. the rate of profit to fall is simply that businesses will sell their products at the cheapest prices possible to keep selling more and more, however the portion of profit becomes more and more minuscule
>>18203442
i think so because you cant measure "value," marx says himself it is abstract. you can't measure how much value the workers added to the commodity- and if you insist that the wage is the right measurement- then you deny any exploitation- as the worker receives the full value of their work- if you define value in their wage.

>> No.18204762

Has anyone unironically read Keynes? I’ve got 600 pages of his essential works on my shelf right now

>> No.18204771

>>18204428
he didn't? what is his theory of value then? and how would value translate into money? doesn't the traditional ltv fall into a transformation problem?

>> No.18204775

>>18204755
Marx asserts that workers receive the full value of their work necessarily; and, that exploitation exists.

Read the cunt before you start mouthing off. Exploitation is about *control over social product*, not about mis priced wages.

>> No.18204785

>>18204762
no, but i have read him ironically

>> No.18204790

>>18202773
They made me read him in college as part of the usual brainwashing program

>> No.18204800

>>18204775
i cant believe you unironically typed this out. I've read Marx lol I've read all three volumes of capital. exploitation is not about who owns the means of production lmfao, its about surplus extraction.

>> No.18204812

Nah cant be fucked. Give me the run down on commie thought.

>> No.18204813

>>18202773
yes, it's laughably bad that it actually changed my life because i no longer get upset with commies, i simply laugh instead

>> No.18204822

>>18203418
what a dumb answer, I doubt you've even read marx or at best didn't understand him lmao

>> No.18204835

>>18204822
what is it i dont understand? genuinely asking. love learning and spent a long time with capital so i'd like to know what I got wrong.

>> No.18204840

>>18204800
What's surplus extraction matey88?

The wage is arbitrary and social in nature, therefore surplus is contingent on socially determined normals. Consider the cost of labour camp workers, which is well below the life-time reproduction and the immediate reproduction cost of labour-power.

Exploitation is solely about control over the means and tools of production, because it is the only way to enforce surplus value-extraction as a general system.

Also consider the critique of Gotha on "full value of their labour" you stupid cunt.

>> No.18204844

>>18204771
marx's value theory is a monetary theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmYFtpfdVn4

the entire framing of the “problem”, even in marxs own work, misunderstands the fact that the transformation itself doesn’t actually exist as any kind of conceptual or practical problem so it doesn’t need to be “solved”. so the "transformation problem" isn't a problem. for more on this see moseley, bellofiore, heinrich, et al

>> No.18204856

My grandma used Das Kapital to fix a table with a broken leg