/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4484230]

Das Kapital is fucking massive

Is it acceptable to read just a condensed version?

[Anonymous No.4484231]

By whose standards?

[Anonymous No.4484235]

>>4484231
Yours, you queer little leftist bitch.

[« 零 » !Ry9.Zir1EM No.4484240]

THE LENGTH IS IRRELEVANT WHEN THE ENTIRETY OF THE CONTENT IS SPURIOUS ARGUMENTS, FLAWED PREMISES, AND FALLACIES.

[Anonymous No.4484243]

>>4484235
I don't give a toss if you read it or not.

[Anonymous No.4484245]

>>4484240
why do you always type in all caps

[Anonymous No.4484248]

>>4484245
Because he's a special snowflake.

[Anonymous No.4484249]

Why do people read Das Kapital when they've never even read a micro or a macro textbook?

[Anonymous No.4484252]

>>4484249
Wat?

[Anonymous No.4484255]

>>4484252
Why do you want to read a critique of capitalism when you don't even understand how a capitalist economy works?

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4484262]

>>4484240
I see you find spurious arguments, flawed premises and fallacies entertaining enough, seeing as how you enjoy Rand so much.

[« 零 » !Ry9.Zir1EM No.4484268]

>>4484262

FIND ONLY ONE EXAMPLE OF A SPURIOUS ARGUMENT, FLAWED PREMISE, OR FALLACY IN AYN RAND'S PHILOSOPHY.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4484271]

>>4484255
By living, working and observing it in action, both past and present, only the brain damaged or willfully ignorant can't see how a capitalist economy works.

It is set up to keep a classist society, comforts greed, corruption and celebrates war and waste.

[Anonymous No.4484272]

>>4484255
Because supply and demand has no bearing on how man actually relates to the society that surrounds him. Everyone understands understands basic Econ it's not rocket science. What's hard in Econ is only how you predict. Marx is on another level. He's not being pragmatic, at all. Marx is best understood as a sociology not pure status quo economics.

[Anonymous No.4484274]

>>4484268
>Racism is [...] the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. [It] has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science.

[Anonymous No.4484293]

>>4484272
>Everyone understands understands basic Econ it's not rocket science.
No, no they don't. Unless by "basic Econ" you mean "supply and demand" but there's plenty more taught in an econ 101 class than that.

[Anonymous No.4484310]

>>4484271
>By living, working and observing it in action, both past and present, only the brain damaged or willfully ignorant can't see how a capitalist economy works.
If that is true, it follows from the following statement that you are either brain damaged or willfully ignorant. If you understood capitalism you would have no reason to believe that it is "set up" for anything. It is very similar to the concept of natural selection in that way. Laymen love thinking about natural selection as if it has goals or objectives.

>>4484272
You'd probably benefit from buying Game Theory for Dummies. Save the 101 textbooks for later.

[Anonymous No.4484321]

>>4484230
That is like asking if it would be okay to read a condensed version of The History of Rise and Fall of Roman Empire.

As long as you don't try to imply you have read the whole work.

[Anonymous No.4484326]

>>4484268
To quote Ayn the Mayn himsef:

"My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."

It's nothing but flaw.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4484359]

>>4484310
Beg pardon if you thought I was calling you brain damaged. I did blurt this out first thing in the morn. "set up" implies too much. I should have said something like "Appears to be set up..." Nevertheless this society is corrupt, greed driven and celebrates war, and it's all over the golden calf of capitalism. Can't you imagine a civilization that gives this thing up? Not at gun point, but willingly?

[Anonymous No.4484360]

>>4484310
>Game Theory
>implying modern casino capitalism is rational and not hysteric

Stop deluding yourself with autist fantasies.

[Anonymous No.4484422]

>>4484359
I didn't. For every negative you can name, there is a corresponding positive. Capitalism is the driving force for innovation (only economically viable in competitive markets), it encourages collaboration and therefore peace when war is more costly than beneficial in the short-term (more and more the case as military equipment becomes more and more advanced) and it stimulates rising productivity whereas a socialist mode promotes freeloading.

>>4484360
It's a pretty good predictor of evolutionary patterns in simple as well as complicated species. If you think game theory is autistic you should fuck off to /tv/ or /mu/

[Anonymous No.4484466]

>>4484422
>it encourages collaboration and therefore peace when war is more costly than beneficial in the short-term

That's pretty one sided, the capitalist doesn't care that it's more costly to the state he only cares that there's war so his product is in demand.

>and it stimulates rising productivity

That's only an argument if a rise in productivity is a means to a worthy end. Productivity is not necessarily good in itself only a capitalist pig would think so. It's wasteful and short sighted.

>If you think game theory is autistic you should fuck off to /tv/ or /mu/

It's pretty autistic as it's a brainchild of people worshipping rationality implying causation all over the place.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4484474]

>>4484422
>Capitalism is the driving force for innovation
It isn't.
>it encourages collaboration and therefore peace when war is more costly than beneficial in the short-term
Oh fuck. You're crazy.
>it stimulates rising productivity
To what ends?

Necessity is the reason for invention. capitalism encourages competition and combativeness. Haven't you ever heard of the military industrial complex? That is a market driven state of perpetual warfare. Fostering "peace when war is more costly" is never taken into account because war always profits someone. Obviously not the soldier/freeloader.

I see where you're coming from, I was born into this mindset. People aren't inherently lazy. A post-capitalist civilization wouldn't be a world devoid of work. on the contrary, it would be just as hard if not harder, but the majority would all rise to the occasion. A healthy happy and properly educated society could make this world work.

[Anonymous No.4484513]

>>4484466
>That's pretty one sided, the capitalist doesn't care that it's more costly to the state he only cares that there's war so his product is in demand.
Why are you assuming there is a state? Why are you assuming the state can be separated from capitalism?

>That's only an argument if a rise in productivity is a means to a worthy end. Productivity is not necessarily good in itself only a capitalist pig would think so. It's wasteful and short sighted.
An increase in productivity implies a higher upper limit. Not the full extent of it has to be utilized. A higher upper limit in productivity is therefore Pareto superior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production%E2%80%93possibility_frontier

>It's pretty autistic as it's a brainchild of people worshipping rationality implying causation all over the place.
Just look at its applications in biology and programming.

[Anonymous No.4484517]

>>>4484474
>It isn't.
It is ultimately competition for resources that drives innovation.
>Necessity is the reason for invention.
There is no necessity when there is no competition. We would still be hunter-gatherers of some form if the agrarian mode (or any other mode) was not competitively superior. Of course though, Marxists love the egalitarian nature of hunter-gatherers so I'm sure you think badly of the transitional period between the two modes.

>Haven't you ever heard of the military industrial complex?
Subjectively it can be seen as a flaw in natural competition, but in the same sense the tragedy of the commons is objectively a flaw in the lack of competition. I don't think war is necessarily bad.

>I see where you're coming from, I was born into this mindset.
I wasn't. My culture is one of the many of the world in which most individuals follow Marxism-Leninism. When I was younger, my father proudly told all of my uncles and aunts about my book collection including books by Marx. That doesn't mean anything about my beliefs now.

>People aren't inherently lazy.
They aren't inherently lazy as a result of centuries of selection against laziness. In a post-capitalist civilization freeloaders and unproductive labourers would flourish. Game theory predicts the lazy individuals will sweep the industrious individuals under such a system. If you wanted to prevent this you'd have to start assigning values to labour to the point where the society would no longer be "post-capitalist".

[Anonymous No.4484525]

>>4484513
>Why are you assuming there is a state? Why are you assuming the state can be separated from capitalism?

Because I assume realism.

>An increase in productivity implies a higher upper limit. Not the full extent of it has to be utilized. A higher upper limit in productivity is therefore Pareto superior.

Oink oink optimization good in itself oink oink.
The question remains; to what end? Is it just a automaton that just grows for the sake of growth, like cancer? It just goes on and on and on just because it merely functions? Are you implying we are the servants of capitalism and capitalism isn't there to serve us?

[Anonymous No.4484537]

>>4484525
>Because I assume realism.
Marxism doesn't assume realism.

>Oink oink optimization good in itself oink oink.
Yes, that's why it's called optimization. It's like you're refusing the choice between option A and B at zero cost and taking the non-choice of only A instead.

>Are you implying we are the servants of capitalism and capitalism isn't there to serve us?
It's neither, it's simply "there". If we find some of its aspects unwanted, we can implement measures to counter-act them. In the same sense, civilizations create systems of laws which punish behavior perceived as an overall negative such as murder and theft. Ultimately this can reduce the tendency towards violence and plunder in a human population.

[Anonymous No.4484552]

>>4484537
>Yes, that's why it's called optimization. It's like you're refusing the choice between option A and B at zero cost and taking the non-choice of only A instead.

I refuse that it's black and white like that.
Optimization is a means not an end it's a tool. I hope you can understand the difference.

>It's neither, it's simply "there". If we find some of its aspects unwanted, we can implement measures to counter-act them.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I get the pragmatist vibe from you. Let's say I believe that you deny the Utopianism of your attitude, that things can go on the way they do right now, forever.

[Anonymous No.4484653]

>>4484230
Anyone who reads Marx or Ayn Rand outside of a classroom assignment is a twit. Corollary: avoid taking classes that would assign either.

[Anonymous No.4484768]

>>4484653

If you don't understand what Ayn Rand was trying to say, that is your problem.

[Anonymous No.4484816]

>>4484517
>It is ultimately competition for resources that drives innovation.
>There is no necessity when there is no competition.

Both of these statements are presupposing competition. Competition for resources drives innovation only in a competitive environment. You think there is no necessity when there is no competition because you assume that competition is the only reason to do anything, rather than doing something for itself. Your arguments are so circular I'm getting dizzy.

[Anonymous No.4484867]

>>4484230
It's not really that massive.

If you are completely unfamiliar with the subject being discussed, you might want to read some introductory literature. I usually don't recommend it, as I personally think that slogging through the text is more productive in the last analysis. The usual recommendation, however, is _Value, Price and Profit_ (_Wages, Price and Profit_ as I sometimes see it). It's pamphlet length and should leave you with some notion of what Marx is investigating and the practical basis for the investigation.

There is also a work by Karl Kautsky, _The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx_, which does a good job of introducing the basic material. I personally read this before my first reading of Capital, and found it quite helpful in preparing me for Marx's vocabulary.

If you are completely unfamiliar with political economy, you could also read Adam Smith's _The Wealth of Nations_ and David Ricardo's _On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation_. These are the two most influential political-economists to Marx, and he cites them and their work readily and often. In my opinion, it is not completely necessary to be familiar with them, but it would certainly help in making Marx more understandable.

For a general summary on the history of Marx's thoughts on the subject of political economy in his own words, you can check out the preface to _A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy_. It is written before the first volume of Capital, and accurately summarized the basis for that work with more brevity than the aforementioned pamphlet.

Links:

Preface to "A Contribution... etc.":

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm

_Value, Price and Profit_:

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm

"The Economic Doctrines... etc.":

http://marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1903/economic/index.htm

Hopefully, you will find some of that useful.

[Anonymous No.4484870]

>>4484816
>doing something for itself
There is no such thing.

[Anonymous No.4484905]

>>4484870

[Anonymous No.4484916]

>>4484870
Eh, taking what I said a bit too literally. I meant doing something for it's own value according to your own needs or it's affect on you personally, rather than doing it to be better than someone else. Or at a higher level, making a product for the sake of the product and it's affects on people rather than for the sake of making something better than something else. Ex: A company manufactures a car to reflect some ideal values they have for it, not so it will be better in some way than some other car on the market. It's just making a distinction of WHY people or companies do things.

[Anonymous No.4485108]

>>4484230
PhD candidate in philosophy here. Responses in this thread seem literally pulled from those awful Von Mises infographics "refuting" Marx. David Harvey's lectures are wonderful companions to Capital--take it slowly and you can finish the whole thing.

[Anonymous No.4485116]

>>4484230
>MFW there's legitimate posturing that implies Rand is even fucking REMOTELY as influential as Marx. It's not even an argument.

[twinshia !Br6NOUSqzs No.4485156]

>>4485116
Are you enjoying getting angry about some thing politically incorrect which pretty much noone is going to disagree with?
I would equate it with;
boxing with a cripple?
Hey, may be you could write sketches for colleghumor!

[Anonymous No.4485177]

>>4484653
But Marx is the most influential intellectual of modern era.

[Anonymous No.4485191]

>>4485108
>PhD candidate in philosophy here.
And that's why your opinion on economics is even more irrelevant than those "responses pulled from Von Mises [sic] infographics".

[Anonymous No.4485207]

>>4484240
u literally like ayn rand leave this board you asshole

[Anonymous No.4485209]

>>4484653
>being this retarded

[Anonymous No.4485210]

>>4485207
You leave this board, pleb.

[twinshia !Br6NOUSqzs No.4485227]

>>4485209
You think there's some way of getting short Ad hominem statements banned from /lit/?

[Anonymous No.4485234]

>>4485227
I think it's already on the to-do list, right after they ban people who post stills from anime as reaction faces.

[Anonymous No.4485236]

>>4485177
He's really not, at least not in any objective sense that I have seen demonstrated. If you isolated him to the sphere of political-economy, you could easily make that argument, considering the huge impact his particular works had on the development of bourgeois economics in the 19th and 20th centuries. Marx himself, however, would be the first to tell you that his work was only the appearance of an inevitable development in political-economy and philosophy. He might even stress such a point by referring to his dear friend Engels, who he claims in the preface to _A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy_ came to his own conclusions by a different road.

[twinshia !Br6NOUSqzs No.4485245]

>>4485234
I just did that about 15 minutes ago.
I suppose that's why you said it.
Whatevz.

[Anonymous No.4485260]

>>4485191
This is probably the first time I have seen someone's opinion called useless because, despite being familiar with the material, they were too specialized in a separate field.

I'll take it you don't work in a field that involves a lot of cross-specialization or foundational philosophy. That's not a dig at you, but if you were familiar with the subject of political-economy, you would know how deeply philosophical was its basis.

[Anonymous No.4485263]

>>4485227
Well, I did reply to:
>Anyone who reads Marx or Ayn Rand outside of a classroom assignment is a twit.
So.. You know..
If someone makes a well thought statement, I'll reply accordingly. If someone spouts bullshit, I feel it is only fair that I tell him he's wrong in a language he can understand.

[Anonymous No.4485269]

>>4485260
>your opinion on economics
>economics
For a board called "literature", people here sure are bad at reading.

[Anonymous No.4485281]

>>4485269
Mate, you were responding to a post about political-economy (Marx's critique of such subject matter) by a supposed philosophy student. The basis of political-economy is, in fact, very philosophic as are the bases of many other fields.

You can niggle over the word 'economic', but that doesn't change the fact that you either know little enough about the subject to think that his post was about pure economics or were confused about the foundational philosophy of political-economy.

Pick whichever.

[twinshia !Br6NOUSqzs No.4485284]

>>4485234
And what about non-still GIFs, then?

[twinshia !Br6NOUSqzs No.4485289]

>>4485263
I suggest you ignore him,
but okay.

[Anonymous No.4485297]

>>4485281
You really can't read. Notice how the bulk of this thread is discussion on actual economics? Now read this:
>Responses in this thread seem literally pulled from those awful Von Mises [sic] infographics
Can you find out what that refers to? This is such a stupid thing to argue about, let alone on another man's behalf. I'd rather we discuss the merits of the socialist mode of production compared to the capitalist mode of production. But alas, no Marxist here seems to know the slightest thing about economics.

[Anonymous No.4485327]

>>4485297
>PhD candidate in philosophy here.

He is making a statement of credibility on subjects philosophic.

>Responses in this thread seem literally pulled from those awful Von Mises infographics "refuting" Marx.

He is making a statement of comparison. Specifically, he is comparing the responses in this thread referring to Marx to those made by Ludwig von Mises. A comparison between similar statements is not an economic statement, although he should have shown examples. Hence, his comparison may be dismissed as unsubstantiated, but not unqualified on the basis of his specific specialization.

>David Harvey's lectures are wonderful companions to Capital--take it slowly and you can finish the whole thing.

Here he is saying, presumably from his experience, that David Harvey's lectures are wonderful companions. This is not an economic assertion.

Again, you can niggle all you wish; the original point remains true.

>...you either know little enough about the subject to think that his post was about pure economics or were confused about the foundational philosophy of political-economy.

[Anonymous No.4485329]

>>4485297
Well they know about economics, but their knowledge stops at around the late 19th century.

[Anonymous No.4485346]

>>4485327
You seem thoroughly confused. I was entirely referring to his dismissal of economic arguments as hailing from Mises infographics. He simultaneously dismissed and insulted an economic argument immediately following the PhD statement. You're willfully ignorant if you don't see the implication there.

>>4485329
It's about as sensible as reading Darwin, Galton and Lamarck and claiming to be knowledgeable on evolutionary biology.

[Anonymous No.4485364]

>>4485346
Or Freud and think you're knowledgeable about psychology.

[Anonymous No.4485375]

>>4485364
There are quite a few on /lit/ like that.

[Anonymous No.4485396]

>>4485375
But Freud is only relevant in a small area of heuristics. Most of his theories have been debunked.

[Anonymous No.4485397]

>>4485346
>You seem thoroughly confused.

Does that ever work?

>I was entirely referring to his dismissal of economic arguments as hailing from Mises infographics.

A statement of similarity, even a mocking one, requires substantiation by citation and not by professional credentials. If they are similar they are so without his understanding the relevance, and if they are dissimilar he is simply wrong no matter the other circumstances.

>He simultaneously dismissed and insulted an economic argument immediately following the PhD statement.

He is an anonymous poster, so I do not see how you could attribute any particular argument to him without him referencing his earlier post. Also, I have checked the posts made after that, and can find no particular posts making such a reference -- if I have brushed over it, feel free to quote the self-referencing post. You have not substantiated this point, so it is to be dismissed.

>You're willfully ignorant if you don't see the implication there.

He claims to be a PhD in philosophy. This is to state his professional credentials in relation to the topic of the OP which is Capital. The OP asks whether he can understand the aforementioned book via summary or a condensed version. The last part of his post, in which he references Harvey, is clearly the suggestion that the OP read the book in question with certain lectures as an aid. This makes good sense, since the OP is expressing concern about the size of such a text. Encouragement against intimidation from a supposed philosophy student on a subject that involves philosophy.

The bit you wish to niggle over is his dismissal of the presumably inane criticisms of the text by those clearly presumed to be unfamiliar with it. He attempts to illustrate their lack of knowledge by comparing their statements to those of someone getting their criticisms from an infographic.

His criticism of his opposition is bad because he did not cite sources or reference the posts being so damned. This would not require his profession to be micro or macro economics, and his profession being in those fields would not make it a good criticism without citing his sources.

[Anonymous No.4485420]

>>4485397
just stop talking about yourself in third person

[Anonymous No.4485425]

This is maybe a stupid question but i want to ask; i haven't read the book but i suspect Das Kapital is a high quality fraud work. How consistent is my opinion?

[Anonymous No.4485426]

>>4485108

His post. ^

>>4485397

My post. ^

>>4485420

Your post. ^

Screencap pending.

[Anonymous No.4485429]

>>4485420
>>4485426

[Anonymous No.4485438]

>>4485429
Did you forget to remove the previous versions from that images history? Yes you did. Here's the unedited version.

[Anonymous No.4485461]

>>4485438

I don't think so, Bob. Anyone can see for themselves by checking.

[Anonymous No.4485468]

>>4485461
Nice re-edit.
Yes, they can check the history of the image that's saved in >>4485429 that you posted. jpg images save all the previous versions of the image as hidden layers. What I did was roll-back the edit you made and post the original screencap that you took.

[Anonymous No.4485479]

>>4485468

Then I'm sure you wouldn't mind taking a screencap of the process by which you 'rolled-back' the 'edit.' While you're at it, you can instruct everyone else on how to do the same thing to the same image to prove it.

I needn't mention how pathetic it is of you to shoop images over losing an argument.

[Anonymous No.4485487]

>>4485108
>>4485116
>>4485156
>>4485177
>>4485191
>>4485207
>>4485209
>>4485210
>>4485227
>>4485234
>>4485236
>>4485245
>>4485260
>>4485263
>>4485269
>>4485281
>>4485284
>>4485289
>>4485297
>>4485327
>>4485329
>>4485346
>>4485364
>>4485375
>>4485396
>>4485397
>>4485420
>>4485425
>>4485426
>>4485429
>>4485438
>>4485461
>>4485468
>>4485479

Every single post after the original in question. More screencaps pending.

[Anonymous No.4485500]

>>4485487

[Anonymous No.4485540]

>>4485108

I entered this thread to recommend Harvey's lectures. You beat me to it.

[Anonymous No.4485541]

>>4485500
Marxists confimed for autistic

[Anonymous No.4485553]

>>4485500
Everyone knows you're shooping these images, give it up.

[Anonymous No.4485572]

>>4485553

A fact, if true, which you are utterly free to demonstrate by posting instructions for individuals who would like to see the 'edits' you assert to have been made. The original image also included a portion of my desktop with certain files in clear view. Perhaps you would like to show that part of the 'original' ? There was, further, a mod in this thread earlier, was there not? If the post in question is mine, I am all to happy to be banned for lying and posting misleading images.

I await your demonstration.

[Anonymous No.4485585]

>>4485572
I already posted the reverted image. Obviously it can only reveal the layers in the same area if you crop it out.

[Anonymous No.4485593]

>>4485585

You have yet to offer instructions for any present to follow so that they may see for themselves. The original image is right there. By all means, teach us your ways of illuminating such knavish behavior.

[Anonymous No.4485598]

>>4485593
Everyone else knows how to do it. That's like the first thing you learn on the internet. I'm not going to show you how to do it if it would deprive others of the chance to catch you at it.

[Anonymous No.4485616]

>>4485598
Uh huh.

How is it going to deprive anyone in this thread of the ability to 'catch' me at it, considering the original image is right there? An empty appeal to 'everyone can do it' will not save your obvious lie.

Either put up, or... You know the rest.

[Anonymous No.4485671]

>>4485236
>He's really not
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/karl-marx-is-the-worlds-most-influential-scholar-180947581/

[Anonymous No.4485682]

>you can't have a thread about Marx's or other leftists' books without enraged /pol/ tweens shitposting it to death

[Anonymous No.4485691]

>>4485671

I concede that this qualifies your post -- assuming you are that poster. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Anonymous No.4485707]

>>4485691
Nope, not that guy, but no problem.

[Anonymous No.4485714]

>>4485616
If you really thought I was lying you wouldn't be demanding proof.

[Anonymous No.4485731]

>>4485714
Are you still on this?

In all the great detective stories, darling, when the guilty party boldly demands that his accuser 'prove' it, the shrewd Sherlock goes and does just that. You claim it is within your power to 'roll back' supposed 'edits' to a screencap, and when pressed, you fell short of doing so. You didn't just fall short, you fell flat on your face blubbering about how you wouldn't give me the satisfaction or something to that effect.

At any point you are willing, if you are telling the truth, you can demonstrate just that. Yet you do not, which makes you dismissible.

Wait longer next time you're waiting for me to leave, yeah?

[Anonymous No.4485739]

why does everybody has an opinion on Karl Marx? How many of you have read and understood Das Kapital?

Fucking ideological shills.

[Anonymous No.4485754]

>>4485671
Feel free to tell /pol/ about the top three being all Jewish.

[Anonymous No.4486829]

>>4484230
No. Read Wages Price and Profit instead

[Anonymous No.4486882]

>>4485739
How many of the people who criticize capitalism have read a single book on economics?
pic related

[Anonymous No.4489931]

Wheee!

[Anonymous No.4489941]

>>4486882
Marx's Capital is a book on economics though.

[Anonymous No.4489971]

>>4484230
it's ok to understand the logic of capitalism, but you wont get info on all the other shit, like the debates (e.g. asiatic mode of production) and specially: the shit marxists themselves don't even know marx wrote, which is hilarious (e.g. unproductive labour still produces surplus value; or social fragmentation, which marxists believe is a postmodern thing to say and go apeshit about it, but its there).

[Anonymous No.4490006]

>>4489971
Unproductive labour doesn't produce surplus value, it save the expense of spending surplus value on the circulation of capital; it reduces the cost of realisation.

Fucksake, read II and III.

[Anonymous No.4490031]

>>4490006
see what i mean?, lel

from volume III, chapter XVII:
>The mass of the individual merchant's profits depends on the mass of capital that he can apply in this process, and he can apply so much more of it in buying and selling, the more the unpaid labour of his clerks. The very function, by virtue of which the merchant's money becomes capital, is largely done through his employees. The unpaid labour of these clerks, while it does not create surplus-value, enables him to appropriate surplus-value, which, in effect, amounts to the same thing with respect to his capital. It is, therefore, a source of profit for him.

so, it appropriates a portion of total capital (the one created by productive labour), but by creating its own surplus value. that's why marx also says unproductive workers are proletarians just as much as anyone else (and why mandel takes it up and says the service sector is also proletarian, for example): because they produce, in marx words, the same result as surplus value.

this, of course, has a lot of political consequences, like not glorifying the factory worker alone and all that crap everyone hates from orthodox idiots.

[Anonymous No.4490032]

>>4490031
>The unpaid labour of these clerks, while it does not create surplus-value
Are you illiterate?

[Anonymous No.4490037]

>>4490032
>enables him to appropriate surplus-value, which, in effect, amounts to the same thing with respect to his capital
are you?

[Anonymous No.4490036]

>>4490031
Also you're missing the point here. You strongly said
>(e.g. unproductive labour still produces surplus value
And then produce a quote that directly refutes your claim.

> which, in effect, amounts to the same thing with respect to his capital

as you'd know is a conditional phrase. For productive and unproductive labour to amount to the same thing for the proletariat, or for capitalism in general rather than a capital in particular is something different.

[Anonymous No.4490044]

>>4490036
i didn't said there was no difference between productive and unproductive labour. i clearly said unproductive labour appropiates the surplus value created by productive labour, but it does so only by producing, creating, effecting, etc, its own surplus value. lel.

[Anonymous No.4490047]

>>4489941

about as much as The God Delusion is a book on theology, yes

[Anonymous No.4490084]

>>4490037
You haven't read Marx.

Marx differentiates clearly capital in general and a capitalists particular capital. The Marx quote outlines that productive and unproductive capital are undifferentiated for profit, and so individual capitalists don't care; but are differentiated for the production of surplus value, so do matter to an analysis of capital in general. Fucksake.

>>4490044
You said unproductive capital produces surplus value, the Marx quote does not support that.

[Anonymous No.4490119]

>>4490084
>You said unproductive capital
unproductive labour, obviously

[Anonymous No.4490797]

>>4484867
not OP, but thank-you

[Anonymous No.4490841]

>>4490797
or read hegemony and socialist strategy to see earlier marxists get taken apart and what the best modern position is

[Anonymous No.4490847]

>>4490841

Thanks


would you (or anyone else) recommend David Harvey's online lectures which accompany Capital 1?

[Anonymous No.4490866]

>>4484870
So you're telling me that no one faps for the fun of it?

[Anonymous No.4490933]

>>4490084
lel, you just throw around different categories. i haven't said there's no difference between one and the other. you can analyze it as an individual capital (where marx clearly says surplus value amounts to the same thing, his own fucking words, lel) or as capital in general (where unproductive labour would be appropriating industrial capital’s surplus profit, by creating “the same thing with respect to his capital”, again, marx's own words).

[Anonymous No.4491622]

>>4490933
Whether labour is unproductive can only be analysed in the context of capital in general, back to Volume 1 with you.

[Anonymous No.4491652]

No because its shit.

[Anonymous No.4491664]

>>4485108
>PhD candidate in philosophy here.
That means nothing beside you're a stupid faggot with no hope of employment.

[Anonymous No.4491672]

>>4485682
>you cant all agree with me and accept anybody who disagrees is a part of the /pol/ conspiracy
Fucking stahp. You can be capitalist without going to /pol/ you know?

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.4491676]

>>4491664
why he can be employed to teach philosophy

[Anonymous No.4492208]

>>4491622
the fact that it can only be analysed in that way (and it isn't, since marx talks about it both as an individual capital and as capital in general) doesn't contradict the fact that it creates surplus value. unless you're confusing analysis with accounting.

[Anonymous No.4492273]

>>4492208
Capital in particular accounts fr surplus labour which is unproductive, in circulation, as if it is a source of profit. This doesn't make it a source of surplus value.

[Anonymous No.4492289]

>>4492273
its not the source, you could say it doesn't create new surplus value, but that it appropriates productive labour's surplus value by producing it's own. thats why marx says its the same thing.

[Anonymous No.4493496]

>>4492289
Except it doesn't appropriate surplus value, it appropriates surplus labour.

Fucksake, seriously? I hope you're doing literary criticism or another field where they allow sloppy use of categories. Because your reading is like your mother: fucked out.

[Anonymous No.4493502]

Read the first few chapters for his theory of the commodity form, the chapter on surplus value, and the chapter on primitive accumulation.

[Anonymous No.4493527]

>>4493496
lel, surplus value is the exchange value equivalent of surplus labour.

you people are idealists, you think this is all a matter of categories and dividing them up and subscribing one thing to one category, and other element to another category (e.g. capital in general is not separate from individual capital, it contains it; surplus value is not separate from surplus labour because its a different fucking category, they have a dialectical relationship; etc).

[Anonymous No.4493754]

>>4490847

Yes. Go watch them.

[Anonymous No.4493831]

>>4493527
>surplus value is exchange
But it arises in P and as C'

Seriously

[Anonymous No.4495149]

>>4493831
i haven't said otherwise, that's actually the difference between productive and unproductive labour: productive labour produces surplus value in the exchange between variable capital and labour force (in P), while unproductive labour is just an increase in the value of goods above their costs of production (in M'). so yeah, you just keep explaining different aspects of marx's theory, but you're not disproving what i've said, nor what marx himself says.

[Anonymous No.4495292]

>>4495149
>is just an increase in the value of the goods above their costs of production
You don't get value, or P, do you?

You are actually functionally illiterate.

[Anonymous No.4495412]

>>4495292
lel, but that's what marx says about unproductive labour! whether its commercial capital (profit), or financial capital (interests) or rent

go read manuals and suck your pseudo-marxist teacher's cock

[Anonymous No.4495441]

>>4495412
You have avoided the fact that you made a category error between capital in particular and capital in general and are continuing the error. Read Mandel's introduction where he talks about Rosa's error on this point in relation to crises.

The fact that you are completely blind to this, and are positing and unsupportable reading of the quote you put, which defeats your argument, indicates that you have a deep illiteracy.

[Anonymous No.4495465]

>>4495441
can you explain my "error", besides just claiming i committed one? you realize you don't explain anything, you just say i "don't understand" X, or that i "haven't read" Y? you do know that makes you even more illiterate than me? can you argument anything?

and since you talk about illiteracy, does marx says this or not? simple yes or no question:
>enables him to appropriate surplus-value, which, in effect, amounts to the same thing with respect to his capital
i mean, everyone here can read it

[Anonymous No.4496499]

Well it is three volumes, then there is the Grundrisse, Theories of Surplus Value etc.

The chapters alternate between dense and quick light reading. The first chapter is very dense - "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as 'an immense accumulation of commodities,' its unit being a single commodity" - is a mouthful of a first sentence.

For years I started to read it and put it down, started again and put it down. Finally I started and just went. I got several hundred pages in, got very busy and haven't gotten back to it. I'm still fairly busy, and wasn't so much when I was reading it.

[Anonymous No.4496774]

>>4495441
in other words, unproductive labour like commercial or financial capital produce their profits through a nominal raise in the value of their respective labour processes (sales prices, interests, etc). that's from the point of view of each of their individual capitals.

according to your reading, capital in general would erase this somehow, just because its not individual capital, and you would only have the creation of surplus value at industrial capital, and the rest appropiating this surplus value that circulates through different sectors in the reproduction of capital.

but from the point of view of capital in general, you would still have to analyze what has been produced by a nominal raise in the value, and what has been produced by the exchange of variable capital and labour force; capital in general doesn't erase the appropiation of surplus value that happens in individual capital, it contains it. that's why you can't separate them just because they're two different categories.

i mean, its even flawed from an accounting perspective, even more from an analytical point of view. unless you actually believe that because we go from individual capital to a capital in general outlook, interests or commercial profits somehow cease to be a nominal raise in the value of their labour processes.

[Anonymous No.4497054]

>>4496774
>a nominal raise in the value of their labour processes
Labour processes don't embody value, commodities, money, and production do.

I see no reason to discuss your work when you are this ignorant of basic marxian categories.

[Anonymous No.4497195]

>>4497054
Money doesn't embody value.

[Anonymous No.4497420]

>>4497054
i said labour processes for three reasons: because financial capital doesn't always produce commodities (they're an intermediary between different individual capitals), because their surplus labour gets valorized in the form of surplus value, and because you're mentioning production, right? well, production is actual labour put into practice (which you don't seem to even realize).

you're hilarious.

[Anonymous No.4498485]

>>4497195
No, it doesn't. Only money, the particular commodity in capitalism that is the universal commodity, does. ie: "M", ie when listed with "commodities" "C" and production "P" it does.

>>4497420
>because financial capital doesn't always produce commodities (they're an intermediary between different individual capitals), because their surplus labour gets valorized in the form of surplus value

Contradiction. You still haven't correctly read the paragraph you quoted out of volume III. Non-productive capital does not produce surplus value.

[Anonymous No.4498546]

>>4498485
lel, again, you're not even saying what is the contradiction or explaining why my reading is incorrect

but thats ok, you just keep contradicting marx at the same time that you alienate everyone talking about how its necessary to follow everything marx said

[Anonymous No.4498630]

>>4498546
I've done so repeatedly.

[Anonymous No.4498676]

>>4498630
lel, i answered everything you said, and you haven't explained what is wrong with my answers.

but that's ok, really, i don't expect to convince you or anybody else, nor do i care about what marx said or not, i just read marx by myself and try to understand it, even if it is to criticize it. i know mandel or kautsky repeat the official reading that you hold, but i think they're contradicting marx as well (mandel even talks about how marx contradicts himself in relation to this same subject: in 'theories of surplus value' he says unproductive labour produces surplus value, and then he says it doesn't, which is the exact same contradiction which is reproduced in the quote i posted). but that's fine by me, i'm not going to impose my reading.

[Anonymous No.4498724]

>>4498676
You've damn well tried your best to by obfuscating the difference between the capitalist's ideological accounting for what happens in capital and the actual relations of capital.

Fuck me, go revel in German Idealism for all your willingness to penetrate the actual relations of social being.

p.s.: In actual economic practice, actual productive activity as in ...P... occurs all the time in so called "service" industries, often in the sense of the "final preparation of a commodity for sale," as opposed to distribution as such.

Further, Marx's analysis of capital is of "non-cheating" capital. Non-productive industries regularly extract surplus labour in _non_ value forms to do with the general reproduction of captial: again this doesn't make these extractions of surplus labour extractions that happen in the form of _surplus value_.

[Anonymous No.4498823]

>>4498724
lel, yeah dude, i'm the ideological enemy, and you're the pure one, we all know (and are tired of) the deal

to actually answer what you say, regardless of whether i convince you or not:
>The unpaid labour of these clerks,
thats the surplus labour you're mentioning
>while it does not create surplus-value,
that's why its unproductive
>enables him to appropriate surplus-value,
which means it is surplus value
>which, in effect, amounts to the same thing with respect to his capital.
which you interpret as being a statement at the level of individual capital, not capital in general. i already pointed out why this is flawed: both analytically and mathematically you need to differentiate between surplus value created in industrial capital and the nominal raise in value which occurs only at the level of unproductive and individual capitals (precisely because you are correct that its at the level of capital in general that you see the difference between one and the other, but that doesn't mean capital in general erases individual capital, it must contain it, precisely to differentiate ir from capital in general. so what marx says about individual capitals, persists at the level of capital in general, it doesn't dissapear in the air). that means capital in general contains individual capital (its the totality of all individual capitals), so its not a completely different category

and idk why you're separating surplus labour from surplus value, when surplus value is the 'form' in which surplus labour (as 'substance') is valorized

[Anonymous No.4498911]

>>4498823
Marx is talking about the appropriation of _other capitals_ surplus value. The surplus labour of finance clerks redistributes surplus value amongst capitals. It does not expand the volume of surplus value in existence.

Seriously, this density is the sign of an autodidact, go get a Party or a University education.

[Anonymous No.4498914]

>>4498823
Surplus labour has been appropriated in the feudal mode as direct extraction. Surplus labour is a general form of social surplus. Surplus value is the specifically capitalist form of appropriation through wage labour in production.

Seriously, go join a Party. The least fucked one.

[Anonymous No.4498962]

>>4498911
exactly, it doesn't create or originates surplus value, it appropriates other capitals surplus value, but it does so by extracting that surplus value (which is foreign to unproductive labour) in its respective productive process (in unproductive labour itself), in the very same act in which unproductive labour is carried out. commercial capital cannot appropriate the surplus value which _it didn't create_, if it doesn't _create an extraction of surplus value_. which is why it 'amounts to the same thing with respect to his capital'. now you see my point, at least? even if you don't agree?
this is only incomprehensible if you don't apply dialectics

and yeah, i will fight capitalism from inside the academy and 4chan, lel

[Anonymous No.4498980]

>>4498914
lel, you're the one who said surplus value was different from surplus labour in capitalism, which is clearly wrong, both in productive labour and unproductive labour (where you extract a different capital's surplus value, by extracting it in your own productive process)

[Anonymous No.4499327]

>>4498962
>and yeah, i will fight capitalism from inside the academy and 4chan, lel
Only if your academy is unionised.
>commercial capital cannot appropriate the surplus value which _it didn't create_

Seriously, read III. Appropriation of surplus capital that it didn't create is _precisely_ what the finance and banking sector does, why the average rate of profit matters, and why commercial capital is lent at all.

>>4498980
Surplus labour and surplus value are different in capitalism: surplus labour can be used to reduce the losses in transferring surplus value. Seriously, read III.

[Anonymous No.4499363]

>>4498980
Finance capital appropriates other capital's capital during C' -> M' and within M' itself, largely, but not entirely because finance capital is often the origin of M.

[Anonymous No.4499386]

1. Possessing some knowledge about a topic is, as a rule, preferable to possessing no knowledge about a topic.

2. It is usually advised that one begin a study with an overview or summary, filling in details as one goes along, rather than attempting a strictly linear progression with the goal of thoroughness.

3. Marxism is an extraordinarily broad and vivacious field, with applications to many fields and a rich life of internal dialogue and argument. It's a many-stringed quilt whose overall image must not be confused with a particular thread.

[Anonymous No.4499426]

>>4499327
i totally agree with you, i'm just saying that in order to appropriate the capital you didn't create, you have to effectively create _labour that extracts it_. i mean, if you talk about appropriation, you need an actual process where that appropriation occurs, right? it must occur somewhere, right? it occurs on industrial capital? _NOPE_, because its an appropriation of its own surplus value, the surplus value already created by industrial capital. where does this appropriation occur then? of course, in the labour process itself which appropriates it, in the labour process of unproductive labour itself. that's all i'm saying. not the origin, not the source, just an appropriation of some other capitals surplus value, yaddi yaddi yadda.

and yeah, i meant to say *completely different: surplus labour is not surplus value, but surplus value is the exchange value equivalent of surplus labour.

i will re-read III, yeh, you should do it as well

[Anonymous No.4502261]

>>4491664

>mfw /pol/ tweens could never hope in a million years to have funding at a tier 1 university like me.

Reddit beckons

[Anonymous No.4502270]

>>4486882
>Implying Economics is one-dimensional, sterilized discipline that lends credence to muh praxeology-tier shitposting fedoras

[Anonymous No.4502272]

>>4484240
Thread, what happened to this laughable tripfaggot?