/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3165079]

what was your first reaction to reading marx?

pic related, though once I wrapped my head around it it was pretty inspiring

[Anonymous No.3165082]

>>3165079
it made lots of theoretical sense

[Anonymous No.3165095]

>>3165082
It was all quite logical, and the practicality of it, in my opinion, is well formed.

[Anonymous No.3165124]

Inspiring blah blah blah but he's pants-on-head retarded when it comes down to the implementation and basic economics.

[Anonymous No.3165138]

I like using his theoretical outlook in other contexts (i.e., Marxist readings of history, literature, art). So fun. But yes, his central axioms were off base.

[Anonymous No.3165140]

>>3165138
Given the conditions of the english working class and the german peasants war;

Given Thompson, and Hobsbawm and Hill

How is history another context for Marx's theoretical outlook?

[Anonymous No.3165144]

>>3165140
...that everything is caused by class inequalities?

[Anonymous No.3165151]

>>3165124

>pants-on-head retarded when it comes down to the implementation

lol yeah ok you don't know marx

[Anonymous No.3165172]

>>3165144
None of the authors I cited assign universal causation to "class inequality." The very term "inequality" means you don't understand class. A worker and a capitalist _cannot be equal_ they have qualitatively different relationships to production. Even if a state, such as Monaco say, emiserised capitalists and made all workers richer than the meanest capitalist, the capitalist would still own capital, and workers would still be dependent upon labour to subsist (this scenario would involve insane capital and expenditure controls).

Marxists assign _primacy_ not _universality_ of cause to two things: the relationships of production, and the self-conscious collective subjectivity of the proletariat in revolution. Beneath these two lie a whole host (and excuse the vulgar Althusserianism as a "lie for children" to educate Anonymous); of quasi and semi determinate structures, such as the state, ideology, culture, the church, the army, "the balance of class forces in class conflict."

In German Peasants War, Engels observes how class interest drove peasants and certain bourgeois to unite around anti-Catholic positions, but also observed how State interest divided them from Luther and the Princes.

Class "inequality" wasn't Engels' primary causative structure, but relationship to material social production was.

You might enjoy Family, Private Property and the State by Engels where he demonstrates complex interdetermination grounded in material relations of being.

[Anonymous No.3165196]

>>3165172
Some quality shit here on /lit/ tonight. I'm impressed.

[Anonymous No.3165210]

>>3165196
Brother can you lend a $1.05 million for a seven year fellowship and two book research project on the historically determinate elements of control in pre-Post-Fordist professional employment?

[Anonymous No.3165215]

Go to korea you stupid commies

[Anonymous No.3165255]

>>3165140

I took a class in historiography. You know, history (research) is very much interpretation-based, so depending on your viewpoint, whether it is classical, Marxist, or feminist, your reading of historical evidence is going to conclude something different from others.

Also, just think about history in terms of Marx's main thesis and you'll see it is obvious how traditional readings of history differ from his.

[Anonymous No.3165258]

>>3165172
Please stop using bold/italic/underline shortcuts from late 80s word processors to communicate on this board. I can't get past that in your post but you seem like a pretty insufferable twat.

[Anonymous No.3165267]

So they don't teach you anything about Marx in school? Nothing about the 19th century? You must be American. Communism is a philosophical fantasy that will never work in human society because we are greedy bastards.

[Anonymous No.3165268]

>>3165258
>word-processors
Sir, I take offence, I am from USENET.

[Anonymous No.3165271]

>>3165255
I think you're missing the point, Marx's methodology was always historical.

[Anonymous No.3165272]

>>3165172

why use "vulgar" as an epithet? "vulgar" marxism, of whatever sort, is a more accurate description of the way things are than the most articulate bourgeois ideology.

[Anonymous No.3165273]

>>3165267
>spite, resentment and envy result from the material relations of society and can be marginalized under a classless, stateless society

el oh ellington

[Anonymous No.3165300]

>>3165272
Yeah, but valence theory can get you a lot of chemical reactions, but it isn't the "best" knowledge we have.

Bits of Althusser are useful for educating people who want to get at the true nature of being, but aren't willing to spend six months talking about how work works.

[Anonymous No.3165302]

ITT: none of you have read Capital vol. I, II and III

[Anonymous No.3165304]

>>3165302

true, laziness

[Anonymous No.3165308]

>mon visage quand someone calls Marx an economist near me

[Anonymous No.3165323]

>>3165302
I'm too busy pretending I have. I have lazy idiot disorder you ableist.

[Anonymous No.3165328]

>>3165323
>I have lazy idiot disorder you ableist.
>ableist
w-wat

[Anonymous No.3165331]

>>3165328
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableism

[Anonymous No.3165353]

>>3165302
Would you like to talk about capital?

[Anonymous No.3165368]

>>3165353
only if you have read it.

[Anonymous No.3165376]

>>3165368
This is why I suggested you might like to talk about it.

[Anonymous No.3165425]

>>3165376
It's shit. After reading Capital I, I knew Marx was nothing more than a butthurt empythizer that created a philosophy that is easily liked as it exults the greatness of the working class, which happens to be the most common denominator in society. Thank you Marx for making philosophy for the semi-lucid masses, I'm sure it hasn't devalued the very word... oh wait.

[Anonymous No.3165515]

>>3165079

my reaction was 'this is tough but i think starting to get it'. the more i read, the more it wormed into my head. now i can't stop thinking about capital.

starting vol. 2 very soon hopefully

[Anonymous No.3165654]

Marx's utopia would only be possible in a world without greedy people.

[Anonymous No.3166689]

>>3165654
Marx never wrote any utopias. Go read some fucking Marx. Manifesto was an immediate political programme, 90% of which has already been implemented in late capitalism.

[Anonymous No.3166692]

>critique of capitalism

Good

>plans for a better future society

Pretty stupid

[Anonymous No.3166699]

>>3165079
>tfw the dumbfuck didn't realize ALL people become greedy selfish assholes given the chance

[Anonymous No.3166701]

>>3166692
>plans for a better future society
No, seriously, where? Front it. What text? Citations are required here because Marx's suggestions are extremely limited, limited, in fact, to the _fundamental power relations required of a society after capitalism_.

Ie: that the working class democratically govern itself, and abolish all other classes (relationships to production).

Now I don't know how hard that is, but, from within feudalism suggesting that, "All men shall bear a common relationship to the law," an equivalent statement to Marx's statement about future social ordering, is not unreasonable, nor did it go without actual implementation, and, as with Marx's statement, in some matters it already was reality.

[Anonymous No.3166736]

>>3166699
Marx's method is founded on the primacy of material interests in social production—ie, in "greed" or "self-interest."

You might like to read Wages, Price and Profit—a simple introduction to Marx's political economy. You'll be surprised at how grounded in self-interest Marx's depiction of economic man is.

It is like I'm giving a primer in a fucking reeducation camp here.

[Anonymous No.3166755]

>>3166701
Stop fucking using underscores for emphasis. Holy shit.

[Anonymous No.3166764]

>>3165425
Without making a lame appeal to nature or tradition, why is a hierarchical society any better than a classless one?

[Anonymous No.3166801]

he repeats the same shit over and over again. On paper it seems like a pretty cool guy but in practice it was always bound to fail.

Also, breasts.

[Anonymous No.3166810]

>>3166755

Why are you so angry at a spontaneously creative supplement of a missing function?

[Anonymous No.3166811]

>>3166801
>Nekkid bitch on /lit/.

Enjoy the wrath of the mods. They are extremely banhappy with nudity.

[Anonymous No.3166815]

>>3166811

It's relevant. She's socialist.

[Anonymous No.3166820]

>>3166815
>She's socialist

welp. There goes my boner.

[Anonymous No.3166824]

>>3166820

> 2012
> having a boner

I pay people to have boners for me.

[Anonymous No.3166829]

>>3166810
It's not spontaneous or creative. They're deprecated shortcuts that old standalone word processors utilized because there was no UI to add emphasis. Like even if you used capslock I'd have less of a desire to stab your posts in the neck.

[Anonymous No.3166832]

>>3166801
/lit/ is a burichan board

[Anonymous No.3166833]

>>3166801
>no tits
>no ass
>pasty skin

What kind of porn is this?

[Anonymous No.3166837]

>>3166810
I suspect it is because they're one of those chaps that supports /bracketed slashes/ to represent italic emphasis rather than _underscoring_ despite _underscoring_ having an extensive history in ASCII information interchange as an indicator of a missing formatting, and in the precursors to ASCII being specified as such.

Besides *who bolds these days*? *Really*?

[Anonymous No.3166841]

>>3166833

my nigger. You obviously don't know perfection when you see it.

> 2012
> not being able to in2patrician tastes

you love fake tans, tits and anuses so much why don't you go and find sum, son.

[Anonymous No.3166846]

>>3166837

Point taken. Not spontaneous. Still creative.

[Anonymous No.3166847]

>>3166837
Nah it's all stupid. You're only marginally worse than a grating retro typewriter faggot if you use any of that. Also relying on italics for emphasis is lazy writing. Good day.

[Anonymous No.3166848]

>>3166829
>that old standalone word processors
You're rather young. My first was a VAX.

And this isn't a "rich text" environment, so I'll enjoy
>making poetics
>>0ut of any
>>>/s/ource I _like._

[Anonymous No.3166855]

>>3165079
"but this doesn't refute Stirner at all"

[Anonymous No.3166866]

>>3166855
Why on earth were you expecting Marx to refute Stirner. As I understand it Stirner is a German Idealist pure and simple, somewhat of the perfection thereof.

[Anonymous No.3166870]

>>3166855

You're such a butthurt hacker.

[Anonymous No.3166903]

>>3166689
>Manifesto was an immediate political programme, 90% of which has already been implemented in late capitalism.

Let´s see what the Manifesto proposes:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Of these measures, only 5 and 10 (and arguably 2) have been implemented. Stop bullshitting, please.

[Anonymous No.3166935]

>>3166855
expecting marx and stirner to even speak to one another on a philosophical level like expecting an orange to taste like grey

you've done your reading but now you need to sort your shit out. go back to hegel, read some more secondary sources and you'll see they're talking about almost entirely different things

[Anonymous No.3166939]

>>3166855
Max Stirner was the Ayn Rand of the 19th century.

[Anonymous No.3166942]

bakunin obviously never produced anything as thorough and philosophical as capital, but i still like this pic

[Anonymous No.3166949]

>>3166939
closer to chomsky imo

"union of egoists" closely resembles anarcho-syndicalism's "free associations"

he's also far, far less insistent about the market

[Anonymous No.3166955]

>>3165124
>can't into Engles, Lenin, Mao

Keep reading, you'll get it.

[Anonymous No.3166959]

>>3166949
He realized, unlike Rand, that capitalism is incredibly self-destructive for everyone involved, but he still advocated for a ridiculous, childish egoism.

[Anonymous No.3166970]

>>3166903>>3166903
>2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
UK post war
>3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Substantively in the UK post-war
>5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Yup
>6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
UK post-war
>7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Yes
>8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Yes—the idle rich were abolished by Fordism.
>9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
Capitalism tried this with suburbia
>10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
Yes

[Anonymous No.3166974]

He says an awful lot about what he thinks Capitalism does, but never really grasps what exactly it is - which is in itself a much more fundamental question because the answer effectively explains why the rest of Marx's work is effectively redundant.

Weber got it. Just a shame he's kind of buried now because of cultural relativism. I hate it when writers get struck from the modern syllabus because they're not politically correct, regardless of their genius.

[Anonymous No.3167007]

>>3166949
>closer to chomsky imo

Hahahahaha, no.

[Anonymous No.3167090]

Marxism sounds logical in theory, but has been proven countless times to fail in practice. His critique of capitalism as a self-destructive system is spot-on however.

[Anonymous No.3167096]

>>3167007
fine. stirner is still very close to anarcho-syndicalism

i just conflated it with chomsky because he's an advocate of such a "system" of social organization

[Anonymous No.3167122]

>>3166974
weber is on practically every sociology syllabus ever, or at least his ideas make it into lecture, either explicitly or structurally

[Anonymous No.3167191]

>>3165124
>>3165267
>>3165654
>>3166692
>>3167090
Mindless platitudes, mindless platitudes everywhere.

[Anonymous No.3167192]

"Was ever a thinker so travestied?"

[sage No.3167429]

>>3166974

you're really stupid

[Anonymous No.3167494]

>>3167090
Well hold on there a second... Marx himself did say that he didn't consider himself a "Marxist", as his words got contorted into what we now know as Marxism. He rejected both the left and right Marxist views as he found they conflicted with his own philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3167495]

>>3167191
>that pic

thanks spurdo :D

[Unknown No.3167582]

/Lit/, I...

[Anonymous No.3167749]

MFW first Marx

[Anonymous No.3167779]

>>3165079
Everything Marx says is true.

[Anonymous No.3167783]

>>3167779
I hope you're fucking kidding

[Anonymous No.3167785]

>>3165271
yeah but he was working as a philosopher not as a historian interpreting historical documents to understand specific events from the past. I'm talking about that.

[Anonymous No.3167800]

>>3165079
>2012
>wasting your time reading something by Karl Marx
ISHYGDDT

[Anonymous No.3167803]

>>3167800

Seriously? Without irony? Absent jest?

[Anonymous No.3167871]

Poor people are happy to accept it.

[Anonymous No.3168057]

>mfw I've begun my reading of Marx by mixing it with David Harvey's work and other authors who come at Marx from several different angles

[Anonymous No.3168080]

>>3167494

that was adressing a specific french leftist (cant remember who atm), people take the statement out of context all the time.

[Anonymous No.3168087]

>arguing against a classless society while posting on an anonymous image board

[Anonymous No.3168092]

>>3168087
Are tripfags the ruling class?

[Anonymous No.3168096]

>>3168092

Tripfag =/= unanonymous

[Anonymous No.3168214]

>>3167785
So why doesn't German Peasants War and Condition of the Working Class in England raise your eyes to the fundamentally historical method.

Engels still reads as if he's using fundamentally modern methodology—but is of course out of date due to his source basis. Except of Condition of the...

[Anonymous No.3168257]

>>3168092
I believe that would be mods.

With moot as dictator.

[Anonymous No.3168371]

I thought this. Just tell me who you are talking about specifically. Tell me something that you know something happened and who you are sourcing it from. But no, you're writing a whole political theory purely from the ability to write as if specific events and relationships are true everywhere at all times. I'll forgive any ignorance you have to show while doing that-- we all have some -- just why? Why'd you abuse your intellect like this?

[Anonymous No.3168376]

>>3165079
it was a criticism against industrial capitalism in it's infant stage, and his views are understandable for someone living in his era as his arguments are heavily observation based

looking back today, it's easy to pick out the many flaws and false assumptions in his theories, not to mention that his solution is completely impractical by today's standards

[Anonymous No.3168379]

>>3168376

>can't into post-Marx Marxism

DYER?

[Anonymous No.3168395]

>>3168376

obviously never read marx

[Anonymous No.3168406]

>>3168379
problem with marxism and most of it's variants is that they all build upon the same flawed fundamental concepts, as well as the lack of knowledge of basic economics

[Anonymous No.3168420]

>>3168406

>flawed fundamental concepts, as well as the lack of knowledge of basic economics

Don't do this. Back up your bald assertions. Discourse 101, man. Nobody wants to do your thinking for you

[Anonymous No.3168427]

So far I've only read The German Ideology and Engels' Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, and I am not impressed. Marx is an angry, self-contradictory demagogue and Engels is a propagandist and a liar.

[Anonymous No.3168432]

>>3168420
fine, lets start with one assumption that practically all flavors of marxism are based on: that "value" is an objective phenomenon that can be precisely be defined at any given time

[Anonymous No.3168438]

>>3168432

pretty sure marx never says it can be precisely defined/quantified. its objective tho. im doubting you really understand LTV or SNLT. look into exchange value vs. use value, you'll find his distinctions useful (heh)

[Anonymous No.3168446]

>>3168438
>exchange value vs. use value

I'm pretty sure Marx didn't invent these... even apart from the fact that they don't 'work' insofar as human beings are not rational enough to calculate these things in the majority of cases.

[Anonymous No.3168450]

>>3168438
the fact that he asserts that capitalism is exploitative in that workers are underpaid compared to the capitalist implies an objective value can be placed on the labor production

[Anonymous No.3168454]

>>3168446

marx never says that they do. are you even bothering to read him? he says that these two aspects of a capitalist commodity produce a tension that cannot be resolved (at least while stile in capitalism). so you're quite right that a rational person will not 'calculate' them, that they exist at all provides an insight into /why/ a person cannot calculate exactly the utility they will gain from a commodity. this contradiction that is objectified in the production of the commodity itself can be understood to have a relationship to the tensions within the market.

[Anonymous No.3168455]

>>3168446
Also, at least the explanation on wikipedia sounds like bullshit:

"Marx emphasizes that the use-value of a labor-product is practical and objectively determined,[4] i.e. it inheres in the intrinsic characteristics of a product which enable it to satisfy a human need or want. The use-value of a product therefore exists as a material reality vis-a-vis social needs regardless of the individual need of any particular person. The use-value of a commodity is specifically a social use-value, meaning that it has a generally accepted use-value for others in society, and not just for the producer"

a) the use-value depends on having an application for it. The technological knowledge of a culture is actually a necessary condition for the use value of something, so it's not intrinsic to the object in any meaningful way.

b) The idea of 'human needs' is an abstraction, especially if you explicitly exclude the individual from this. This is a fundamental problem with Marxism, it refuses to ground social phenomena in actual individuals, which is the source of many of its problems.

[Anonymous No.3168456]

Now when it comes to fiction, I never read abridged versions.

However, when it comes to works such as Kapital, how essential is it reading the entire work when I can just read the abridged version and fill in any gaps through discussions or simple Google searches?

The abridged version would surely cover all major points without any unnecessary shit, righT?

[Anonymous No.3168457]

>>3168455

>at least the explanation on wikipedia sounds like bullshit:
>wikipedia

[Anonymous No.3168458]

>>3168454
>are you even bothering to read him?

At the moment, no. I would like to give Kapital a try, but until I find some people to do it with and keep me motivated, I know it's no use even trying.

[Anonymous No.3168460]

>>3168450

well its a fact that surplus value must be produced for a capitalist, otherwise there is no profit. that is true. again, value is objective, but think about all the fluctuations in what is considered 'socially necessary' (marx puts a heavy emphasis on this for a reason)

[Anonymous No.3168461]

>>3168457
well, the place we are having our discussion on is certainly worse than wikipedia. If you think anything I quoted from the wiki is inaccurate, just go to the talk page and make your case. That would certainly be more productive than pointing out something everyone knows already. Yes, wikipedia has its weaknesses, but the concept as such is pretty good, and if you don't like an article, why not at least complain to someone who cares, i.e. the people who read the talk pages?

[Anonymous No.3168463]

>>3168455

Dude you're not going to understand concepts he wrote literally hundreds of pages on from reading wikipedia

[Anonymous No.3168465]

My first reaction to Marx was annoyance, as it was shoved down our throats by my High School Social Studies teacher (a white liberal hippy guy). He was a dick about it, too. Self righteous and condescending. What he didn't realize that our class had quite a few immigrant kids in it who were from families that were fleeing communist regimes (including my own). I've hated white liberals ever since (-every bit as dogmatic as any Christfag)

[Anonymous No.3168466]

>>3168461

It's not so much that wikipedia is wrong, its that you wont understand it if you read a 1 paragraph distillation of concepts which are built up over 2,500+ pages of text.

[Anonymous No.3168467]

>>3168466
>>3168463

Loads of text... that sounds horrible. I have not yet heard a compelling argument for why it should even be that long. I think what happens is that the personal investment of reading 2500 pages in many cases builds up enough emotional pressure that people who actually go through that ordeal simply like and defend it because that retroactively justifies the time and energy they invested. If the concept was so difficult that it actually needed 2,5k pages (and I highly doubt it, from the other texts I've read I know that Marx likes to ramble on at lenght when he could have made his point in 1/10 of the text), almost no one will understand them anyway, certainly not enough people that everyone who calls themselves a Marxist would have actually understood it.

[Anonymous No.3168468]

>>3168460
youre assuming the capitalist is the only one receiving a profit

>value is objective
this is obviously not true in any real economy, as value of any good or service differs from individual to individual, as well as from time to time. also there is no strict definition of what is "socially necessary"

this is the problem with marxism: it is so obsessed with objectivity (ironically) that it loses touch with real social/economic interactions

[Anonymous No.3168480]

>>3168456

I think it's more fun to read the whole thing. Part of the joy of Capital is the unorthodox method Marx uses to gradually build his argument.

Michael Heinrich - An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital
David Harvey - A Companion to Marx's Capital

are two excellent summaries/companions/intros if you're really stuck

[Anonymous No.3168481]

>>3168468

capitalist earns profit.
worker earns wage (he exchanges his labour-power for money)

there is no profit in the second situation. only exchange

[Anonymous No.3168484]

>>3168481
the distinction is trivial in that sense, since the capitalist is merely earning whatever he receives in return for his work - just as the laborer does

[Anonymous No.3168485]

>>3168468

>as value of any good or service differs from individual to individual, as well as from time to time.

by objective Marx does not mean 'fixed utiility for all eternity'. he means that it is objectified. the commodity is objectified labour of a specific character. it has certain properties.

this is why reading wikipedia articles is not sufficient. he uses certain words/phrases in a way which are different to the common modern-day usages. if you take the time to read him it's a lot easier to get where he's coming from.

[Anonymous No.3168488]

>>3168484

no, if he was earning what he recieved for his work, there would be no profit. it would be a non-profit economy (and therefore not capitalism).

this is why you need to read Marx. i can go back and forth about trivial stuff all day, but if you take the time to read the first 300 pages yourself a good number of your misconceptions will be cleared up

[Anonymous No.3168492]

>>3168485
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_value
>see quotes
wikipedia may not be the most accurate at times, but unless those are outright misquotes i dont think ive taken him out of context

[Anonymous No.3168497]

>>3168492

You've taken him out of context because you're trying to use common contempory definitions of the word 'objectified' without understanding what Marx himself meant by it.

[Anonymous No.3168498]

>>3168488
profit is net income minus the liabilities. if a capitalist makes no profit it means hes recieved 0 for his part of the work

[Anonymous No.3168499]

>>3168498

Ugh ok you don't even know what 'profit' means.

[Anonymous No.3168503]

>>3168498

dude you should really read marx. he goes through all this within the first few chapters.

[Anonymous No.3168507]

>>3168497
>"Use-value as such, since it is independent of the determinate economic form, lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy."
i dont think it gets any clearer than this, but if you insist on using a different definition of the term "objective," then this is more or less meaningless

[Anonymous No.3168508]

>>3168498

Making no profit means you have been EXACTLY compensated for your work. Equal exchange between two individuals.

[Anonymous No.3168509]

>>3168480
>Michael Heinrich - An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital
>David Harvey - A Companion to Marx's Capital

thx, I'll check those out.

[Anonymous No.3168510]

>>3168507

oh my god you're an idiot. why are you still reading wikipedia articles when you don't understand the larger context of these statements

[Anonymous No.3168511]

>>3168499
lol are you seriously trying to argue the definition of one of the most fundamental concepts in economics

[Anonymous No.3168512]

>>3168485
>>3168497

Objectified in this case refers the Hegelian conception of how the object created by the worker is an externalization of him (his essence?), right?

[Anonymous No.3168513]

>>3168508
>Making no profit means you have been EXACTLY compensated for your work
so if i spend 10 bucks to make a burger and sell it for 10, im being exactly compensated for my work?

seriously now, this is just trolling to make marxists look bad right?

[Anonymous No.3168514]

>>3168507

He's saying use-value isn't really that relevant to economics. It doesn't matter so much to him /why/ a person wants a certain commodity. Because why something is desired changes between different individuals, different cultures, different moments in history, etc. He's more interested in exchange-value, which is the ratio at which things are traded for in the market.

Ok, now if you had actually read the first few pages (that statement is literally about 4 pages through Capital Vol. 1 iirc) you would understand that. Because you've browsed a wikipedia article you have no idea where to place it in Marx's logical method, and therefore can't make any sense of it.

[Anonymous No.3168516]

>>3168510
>"Use-value as such, since it is independent of the determinate economic form, lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy."
>independent of the determinate economic form
> lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy
seriously how dense are you not to know what this means

[Anonymous No.3168518]

>>3168513

Yes. A free-market is exchange between two equals. Neither man has influence over the other, so the value of the goods that they exchange will be exactly equal.

[Anonymous No.3168524]

>>3168465

Except Marxism is opposed to liberalism you complete fucking moron. Maybe your family should have stayed in that communist regime so you could have received a decent education.