What should I read before starting Capital?

why live?

Fully agree with the first sentence - this is what most people would recommend.

Second sentence is extra credit if you're really into it.

Attached: 30d9c3f51d7d9b8594928e23b112994ea621d71d8b0e63160aa5ea93c67cc18f.jpg (600x543, 113K)

Marx never accounted for human nature

>Marx never accounted for human nature
Bait

>cope

Attached: really.jpg (250x241, 6K)

HA. No you.
Marx overlooked a few things, but How exactly do you debunk the LToV?

moldbug

Attached: the-cathedral.png (700x758, 120K)

the fact that workers care more about wages than about "muh value". or that you can't quantify value in any productive effort that requires any sort of logistics, organization, or leadership.

>muh labor value
yeah, I'm sure the fair compensation for your low IQ assembly line drudgery is the entire product, using equipment you never bought or made, using training that was taught to you before you joined, never worrying about your job most of the time because the marketing team ensured that your product had demand, making use of the stability that management provides as you never have to worry about having enough materials and whatnot to do your job, etc.

>but... I touched it... it should be mine
KYS wagecuck. the rich are pathetically corrupt, but so are the entitled slobs looking to get theirs without putting in the work.

Attached: marxbtfo.jpg (600x849, 227K)

You should stop making this thread.

you'd have to explain why "human nature" is at odds with the LTV.

>the fact that workers care more about wages than about "muh value".
does the theory claim otherwise?
> or that you can't quantify value in any productive effort that requires any sort of logistics, organization, or leadership.
why not?
>yeah, I'm sure the fair compensation for your low IQ assembly line drudgery is the entire product, using equipment you never bought or made, using training that was taught to you before you joined, never worrying about your job most of the time because the marketing team ensured that your product had demand, making use of the stability that management provides as you never have to worry about having enough materials and whatnot to do your job, etc.
the theory doesn't make an normative claims about who deserves what.

absolute yikes

this :
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/value-price-profit.pdf

Everything in Marx is based on the surplus value. So thats a good intro.

I absolutely adore how there's been large-scale communist experiments all over the globe for a century now and yet to this day the only thing commies have to support their ramblings lies completely within the realm of theory because it always shatters the second it comes into contact with reality. Communists are some of the only people on the planet you should always feel comfortable laughing off.

Attached: friendo.jpg (677x678, 180K)

73 years is a very long second.
If capitalism is so strong, then why are Cuban crickets able to explode foreign diplomats' brains with technology only know through the immortal sciences of Marxism-Leninism?
Checkmate, theists.

Attached: 4h3rbv34wrh21.jpg (1080x828, 121K)

Marxists dont read books, they just LARP as commies
Saged your shit thread

Nice take.
I think you meant to bump, so I helped you.

Attached: liberty_dzugashvili.jpg (753x527, 52K)

>typical commie brainlet assumes anything that isnt marxian socialism is capitalism
If true gommunism hasnt be tried in over 100 years then what do you think of fascism? Was true fascism tried? Or does your double standard disqualify that

Supersonic Kek.

He was a paste eating retard that didn’t understand simple concepts like depreciation or how supply and demand works.

Go ahead an explain how the LTV accounts for prices of things that are socially valued. Unless you actually think the LTV accounts for how people value something like an autographed book.

On the contrary, all they do is read books. They never act

Has true capitalism been tried according to lolbertarians? Hows the current neoliberal globalist mixed economy working out for the globe?

Every single "Marxist" I've met has never actually read Marx
Reading Marx was what made me reject his materialist views

>Go ahead an explain how the LTV accounts for prices of things that are socially valued. Unless you actually think the LTV accounts for how people value something like an autographed book.
an autographed good isn't a freely reproducible good. the theory doesn't purport to apply to those kinds of goods.

Pretty great desu.
There’s never been more democracies, higher educational attainment, wage growth, reduction in poverty, and mean average lifespan in the history of the world.

How’s Venezuela doing?

Attached: 3E6DFB11-6BF9-4F28-8FCA-64C883E6FE6D.png (214x236, 6K)

Lolberts live in a fantasy world, their ideology will never see the light of day.
Capitalism is failing around the world and sooner or later it will collapse. I support a socialliy traditional revolt, as opposed to a materialist communist revolt, which I think will only lead to another Russia or China situation. Since it doesnt address the heart of the issue and still reduces humans to mere numbers. Whats required to save this world is an anti-materialistic conception, at least in things other than economics. Ideology should be completely removed from economics and the economy should serve the people. Plato's ideal should be our goal.
Thats just what I think.

>how supply and demand works
He wrote a three volume 4000 page work on exactly that topic

>How’s Venezuela doing?

about to be assraped because having oil is a course.

That’s a complete dodge and you know it. LTV doesn’t account for social valuation.... which is a large driving force of pricing mechanisms.

Even later Marxists point this out.

>That’s a complete dodge and you know it.
you deny that the LTV only purports to apply to freely reproducible goods?
>LTV doesn’t account for social valuation.... which is a large driving force of pricing mechanisms.
you'd have to explain what you mean by "social valuation." sounds like you're just talking about demand, which Marx doesn't deny determines market prices.

>implying anyone wants shit dirty Venezuelan oil
The shit probably costs more to try and make usable than the effort to get it out of the ground.

Attached: B0A511A4-3A6A-4A9C-9CAA-0886581654B0.jpg (728x462, 70K)

twitter.com/AhmedKaballo/status/1096206372931293185

Attached: 1499085402211.jpg (600x654, 82K)

It seems India wants it .

oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Warns-The-World-Against-Buying-Venezuelan-Oil.html

I'm from a former communist country in Europe, but please tell me all about the value of Marxism and how it really hasn't been tried.

> Government Bailouts
Nice try, the FED

What country?

Kurwaland

Attached: Jaruzelski.jpg (378x216, 24K)

How does it feel that most of the people that were alive then view it positively, and that your view is in the minority? Does it feel like sour grapes?

rt.com/russia/446894-ussr-nostalgia-russia-survey/

Oh fuck one tweet? That really jogs the noggin of how their GDP has contracted by ~25% over the past 4 years.

I'd honestly like to hear what communists have against fascist ideas. It seems to me like we agree on a lot of issues, but I feel (as did Mussolini and Gentile, former marxists) that it throws out the baby with the bathwater and removes an essential element.
>inb4 fascism is just capitalism in decay
>inb4 any other fallacy
Genuinely would like to have a proper discussion with commies for once. I think we agree on a lot of things, and I certainly consider myself to have more in common with a communist than a capitalist.

To be fair Stalin wasnt a communist, he was just a power hungry dictator. Lenin didnt want him to take over.

Pretty shameful that you, an outsider, feels compelled to tell someone who experienced it first hand how they're actually wrong. Have some respect. Whatever the public in Russia thinks the USSR under Stalin objectively caused irreversible damage to eastern europe and caused the deaths of millions.

The idea that there’s not an inherent “labor value” or a “use value” of a product because it’s a socially assigned value.

This probably made sense with Marx in his time of mass production in factories. But we’ve seen that given multiple competent products of similar quality people will buy it because it was made in the USA, or because they like Nike. Not for any inherent use value.

another post for the trashbin

>Pretty shameful that you, an outsider, feels compelled to tell someone who experienced it first hand how they're actually wrong. Have some respect. Whatever the public in Russia thinks the USSR under Stalin objectively caused irreversible damage to eastern europe and caused the deaths of millions.
Go fuck yourself capitalist shill. I'll respect you when you stop lying about how people from the former USSR actually feel about the collapse of the Soviet Union.

imagine being OP and making this dishonest thread every day and being a lying word mincing faggot every day of your life and thinking you're one of the good guys

>smart phones
funfact: The fist working cellphone was developed in the soviet union.

Glad to see you didnt read my post
Such a typical kneejerk triggered reaction from your kind

there is literally nothing wrong with extracting surplus value

Wow, it's almost like crippling sanctions destroy your economy.
Weird how even still all the reactionary protesters look like rich, fat fucks though after all that "GDP loss."

Attached: qqs5x8dobed21.jpg (1080x1080, 182K)

>The idea that there’s not an inherent “labor value” or a “use value” of a product because it’s a socially assigned value.
yeah, that's just repeating the claim.
>This probably made sense with Marx in his time of mass production in factories. But we’ve seen that given multiple competent products of similar quality people will buy it because it was made in the USA, or because they like Nike. Not for any inherent use value.
the theory doesn't claim that labor-time determines demand. and Nike products, again, are not freely reproducible goods.
whether or not there is something morally "wrong" with it isn't the issue. Marx simply thinks that it's an unsustainable mode of production in the long run.

Weird how there were only light sanctions against individuals only put in 2017 after mass unrest in the country when the economy had been collapsing since 2014 because Chavez and Maduro were/are retarded faggots that never diversified their economy and held the country at the whims of the price of oil.

But why would I expect you to know basic facts about Venezuela right?

Why don't you tell us more about your lived experience, false-flag concern troll?

Attached: DeY0gTIXUAEr-N7.jpg (800x1200, 248K)

>an unsustainable mode of production in the long run
I did not mean morally. That said, capitalism seems to be humming along pretty well, sadly, and the logic of its markets penetrates ever and ever more deeply into our lives and psyches. I, one who hates capitalism, think that it /is/ sustainable, sadly, and that it will remake us humans to ensure its own perpetuity insofar as we fail it.

Attached: the-matrix-infant-sac.jpg (524x640, 120K)

>diversify their asset portfolio
The Venezeualan people do not owe you their oil pig

>That said, capitalism seems to be humming along pretty well, sadly, and the logic of its markets penetrates ever and ever more deeply into our lives and psyches. I, one who hates capitalism, think that it /is/ sustainable
well you'd have a provide an argument against the LTV for that to be a justified claim.

Right. And I’m pointing out that’s a glaring problem with the LTV. There’s no such thing as a freely reproducible good because humans don’t work outside of a network of social interactions. There’s no such thing as *bland grey sneaker with no social value assigned to it*. Even if you make a *bland generic sneaker* you still have people that think sneakers look better and are going to value it more highly than *bland generic boat shoe* despite being identical in use value.

Unless you want to attempt to construct a completely Orwellian idea of a totally unsocoalized human with absolutely no understanding of anything. But that’s so totalitarian it’s utterly ridiculous to even advocate for.

>I point out how you have no idea what you’re talking about and you don’t understand even the basic timeline of events
>ad hominem
Don’t you have a chapo podcast to be listening to?

Why don't you read my post and realise I'm not that user, I actually responded to you both.
Dumb fuck.

marx is literally st augustine without God... read city of god and utopia and you'll see and be less

of course

extracting is not the problem. Being on the extracted side is the problem.

Attached: wb.jpg (276x183, 10K)

>sustainable

idk.

Attached: 1544285512211.jpg (832x960, 77K)

>does the theory claim otherwise?
yes because one of the central points of Marxism is that there is a disconnect between price of labor and the value of labor under capitalism. i.e., the whole idea that workers are being exploited by not being given what they are due.

>why not?
go ahead and try, cucklord. I guarantee that if you could, you wouldn't be getting a higher wage.

>the theory doesn't make an normative claims about who deserves what.
lol. confirmed brainlet. Marx's labor theory of value is the basis for many of the normative claims that he makes. unfortunately, it's wrong from an empirical standpoint and from a normative standpoint.

absolute soi

Attached: wrong.gif (480x287, 1.21M)

Aww, no more lived experience? All of the sudden your buddy with the same IP who was so happy about when his country was looted by western capital disappears too? How convenient!

Attached: 60_soviet_fashion.jpg (1000x987, 151K)

Attached: 1544287877993.jpg (750x997, 89K)

the left can't meme

>with the same IP
You sure are stupid huh
You cant see IP's on Yea Forums dumbass
You can only see new IP's with 4chanx

Attached: Capture+_2019-02-22-08-29-57.png (716x330, 54K)

>you'd have a provide an argument against the LTV
I am not sure why this is so. There is no dearth of 'value' in the world or sources thereof. The economy is not a closed system. There are corporations now that make money by aggregating and mediating our social relationships, companies that make money by giving us the opportunity to commodify ourselves for mass consumption and the privilege of being advertisements. There is literally an entire of universe of possible expansion both inward and outward.

Kafkesque

Point to where I was wrong about the timeline, retard.
Bonus: it isn't the part where you said "light sanctions" in response to when I said there were sanctions.

> I cann’oh unnerstan it. Therefore it isn’t a meme
The right can’t see memes

lol try again

Nobody?
Typical

>dude marx just didn't know about supply and demand

Absolute state of Yea Forums

>posts a massive wall of text to explain "joke"
>often joke is just a lecture, not even meant to be funny
lol fuckin hilarious xD xD xDDD I guess the left can meme after all

>Pretty shameful that you, an outsider, feels compelled to tell someone who experienced it first hand how they're actually wrong. Have some respect. Whatever the public in Russia thinks the USSR under Stalin objectively caused irreversible damage to eastern europe and caused the deaths of millions.

By linking data this is not what he is doing though, I feel as though you've misunderstood.

>crippling sanctions destroyed the Venezuelan economy
There were never crippling sanctions at any point, and there were only sanctions against individuals and against buying Venezuelan bonds instituted in 2017. The economic collapse began in 2014, fully three years before light sanctions were even instituted. So giving you the most charitable of defenses and going with 2016 which is a year before sanctions Venezuela had 800% inflation with absolutely zero political outside influence on the economy, and prior to mass civil unrest.

Is this the part where you try to openly lie again, or do you just call me a chud now?

>Marx never accounted for human nature

Attached: 22ab6395549c583a40bae48216d6559938048d7fe0ac8f44d3f43e93ae425c6d.jpg (625x415, 59K)

*let me correct that I meant Venezuelan bonds were sanctioned in 2017 with only individuals being sanctioned prior

this has to just be the same retard shitting up every marx thread. i refuse to believe that Yea Forums is this autistic

reuters.com/article/us-iran-usa-sanctions-idUSTRE74N47R20110524
Stupid fuck
Go fellate your gas man some more chud

How do you explain the price of a good with a supply and demand equilibrium?

>”The sanctions are largely symbolic, since they do not limit the company’s sale of oil to the United States and other global markets, or the activities of its U.S.-based CITGO subsidiary.”

Literally the first fucking paragraph you absolute sperg. We didn’t limit sales of oil from Venezuela until like two weeks ago.

A survey is pretty dubious data user
And data is beside the point
You're ignoring history
Stalinism quite literally indoctrinated and brainwashed people into personality worship, try Hitler worship x100
Many there today still believe the propaganda they were fed

To anyone interested in Marx or socialist literature, if you're actually interested in educated takes on this stuff you should go to /leftypol/ .It's basically filled with insanely educated NEETs that spend all day writing essay length investigations and discussions into marxism and marxist literature. There's some hardcore retard tankies but they're always willing to have a good faith discussion about this stuff.

Attached: 2f58adb162f67664f258e76afd465a41a8a2f5c3680a45221cdc7ba2606d4285.png (456x456, 292K)

Not him but outside of materialist conception he didnt
He seems to believe all conflicts and movements in human history are a result of materialist concerns and can be solved with materialist means

>/leftypol/
>insanely educated
O I laff

>It's basically filled with... insane... NEETs
>There's some hardcore retard tankies
pretty much the only true things you've said.

We literally sanctioned their oil company.
We sponsored a coup in 2002.
We continually tried to thwart Chavez, and despite that he doubled GDP while spending 60% of government funding on social services and recovering from inflation.
American oil interests can't abide autonomy though.

Leave on your blinders. You don't care about Venezuelans. You love that you're sanctioning them. It doesn't matter. You won't be invading, and the record remains that socialism under Chavez gave Venezuela unprecedented prosperity, which is why Maduro can literally run on fumes despite incompetent statecraft.
The Venezuelan example is not an argument against socialism, it's an argument against US imperialism.

Attached: south_american_destruction_CIA.jpg (3300x1619, 885K)

You do realize that Venezuela has fucking refineries in the USA that, up until recently, were at full production? Ever heard of Citgo?

I fully agree with you about the CIA in general, but don't fucking portray the Chavez regime as anything but corrupt. Go look up their formula one team lol.

>I agree with you in general about the CIA but I agree with everything that they say

Attached: 5f3593af4de218949336eb52c6eb109be5f497b9aa774bf1443502dadd54c1b5.jpg (480x360, 20K)

>posts an image that has nothing to do with the argument at hand
>blames the CIA for the coup against Chavez even though Chavez himself literally said the US had nothing to do with it
>GDP MYSTERIOUSLY grows directly in correlation to growth in oil prices
>Social services expand, but the economic diversity doesn’t, must have been MAGIC where the spending for that came from
>not a single part of the response to this involves any evidence to contradict my explaination of the timeline of the economic collapse

I want one ONE (1) single shred of evidence that your original claim of crippling US sanctions destroyed the Venezuelan economy is in any form true. I can quote the exact amount of money frozen overseas for you. It’s 8 billion. The Venezuelan economy has lost ~150 billion or so in GDP since 2014. And reached inflation of 1000% in 2017 before bond sanctions were implemented. I’m just asking for a (single) piece of evidence how 8 billion in freezes funds and light sanctions against individuals and practically non-existant sanctions against PVDSA caused this.

Or you just wanna dodge some more?

In Yea Forums's defense this is not a politics board.

Interesting how you missed the part where we funded a coup and continuously funded opposition groups to attempt to delegitimize and undermine Venezuelan sovereignty.
Do you think fighting US intelligence is free? Or do you think that the CIA implements regime change in broad daylight? The sanctions were largely symbolic, but what they symbolize is real and material. You think it costs nothing when the US turns most of the world against you?

>not a single solitary refutation of the timeline of sanctions
Okay I’m done here. All I asked for was one shred of evidence and you couldn’t do it. So you’re gonna scream CIA. That I’ll say again, Chavez himself literally said the US wasn’t involved, and there’s no evidence we ever supported it.

Chapo Trap House everyone.

The data agrees. Capitalism can only uplift the people, and even if crippling sanctions were happening (AND THEY AREN'T), it would only be for long-term benefit and well-being of all humans.

Attached: steven-pinker-009.jpg (2060x1236, 320K)

I showed you evidence here, and you admitted it:
Those are sanctions, and you're wrong.

>waaahhhh but they aren't big enough some podcast hurt my feelings

Why don't you explain why the Venezuelan economy is still better off after Chavez and Maduro if it's supposedly so terrible?
Why is the GDP per capita still higher now after adjusting for inflation than it was in the 90s?
If socialism is so terrible for Venezuela, why is it still better off afterward regardless of you Jingoist squawking?

You posted an article in which the first paragraph stated it was symbolic and didn’t limit sales of oil or CITGO operations.

>nationalizes oil at peak oil prices and squanders all the money on social spending that doesn’t develop a single part of the country and now the entire project is collapsing in on itself

It’s higher because they run a petrostate, higher GDP in a completely undiversifiee economy is a great way to have everything collapse. But yes. I’m sure losing 24 pounds a year with almost the entire population in poverty is way better off.

What is it with you people and being so desperate to defend authoritarians?

Is chomsky right about Lenin bros?

youtube.com/watch?v=jxhT9EVj9Kk

The article states that sanctions were placed on PDVSA for trading with Iran. These are actual sanctions, on PDVSA, in 2011. "Largely symbolic" doesn't mean "these aren't economic sanctions." Read the article. You're wrong.

Venezuela was a petrostate long before Chavez as well. The GDP only doubled after PDVSA was nationalized by Chavez, and it still hasn't fallen back to 90s levels despite the inflation. The nationalization of the oil company and strict price controls on exported oil was a good thing. It's also what infuriated the US, it's main trading partner. Hence the US backed coup, the sanctions, the millions in funding to opposition, the current coup attempt, the shipped weapons to opposition, the additional sanctions, and so on.
Despite all of this, Venezuela isn't even a Marxist socialist state. It's tepid democratic socialism. It's nowhere near as communist Cuba, which has been doing fine for 70 years. Why don't you mention that?

>reality
you misspelled "american proxy guerrillas"

Don't read anything. Just go work night shift at Wal-Mart for a few months. Then you'll be ready.

They banned us companies from contracts with PDVSA. That’s utterly nothing. Again, to go back to your ORIGINAL claim which you’ve endlessly dodged, being crippling sanctions destroyed the Venezuelan economy. I’ll ask again for evidence OF CRIPPLING SANCTIONS.

Why do all you fucking Tankies always do this shit? You get asked for the basic minimum of proof for your claims, pass off flimsy nothings as incontrovertible truth, and then shotgun as many unrelated statements as you can. So again 1 (one) piece of evidence that contradicts what I’ve said about the state of the Venezuelan economy since 2014. Not “muh coup that there’s literally no evidence the US backed” not “but what about the economy before Chavez” not “but we gave donations to opposition parties” not “what about Cuba”.

Either address the central part of the argument or fuck off back to Chomsky land.

If only the world was just one big laboratory environment where psueds could spend all day testing their theories without even having to worry about wind resistance, amirite? All those American guerrillas in China and the Soviet Union killed millions.

is the bad spelling the joke?

Damn. Based.

Basic Economics.

>tfw you can't hate both klepto-commies and the CIA
really makes you think. by the way, the last CIA director, John Brennan, openly admitted to voting for the Communist Party in 1976. You really think these faggots care enough about communism nowadays?

They're probably more concerned about imploding Venezuela as fast as they can so they can stimulate another refugee crisis and flood the USA with refugees just like what happened with Syria/Libya and Europe.

Attached: sowellbook.jpg (329x499, 18K)

>sexual equality
My memorys of living in Russia as a child in life was gays being beaten by police.
REAL equity

absolutely nothing. just open it. do you people really need your hand held for every reading decision you make?

Sowell is just as much of a brainlet as Marx

hegel
you cannot read marx without having read hegel
also read some introductory material about marxism first, and possibly early marx i.e. the 1844 manuscript and the communist manifesto

>saved the world from Nazi Germany
And condemned half the world to a worse fate
>ended the centuries long famine in eastern europe
>ended famine
Surely you're joking
>ended racial inequality
Ah yes the multicultural paradise of the Soviet Union who could forget
>ended sexual inequality
If throwing women and children into the meatgrinder of war is equality to you, then uh, cool.
>free education
Nazi Germany had this first
>99% literacy rate
Got a source for that?
>most doctors per capita
Until Stalin decided to proscribe them and have them sent to the gulags for being jewish, which hilariously resulted in his own death
>eliminated poverty
Starvation was so bad that people literally turned to cannibalism

Well, Marx only had Adam Smith and Ricardo to read, Sowell had to ask his professors at the Chicago school

How completely expected to find you here tripfag

>And condemned half the world to a worse fate
you know where to go back

Your fantasies about this nonexistent communist utopia you think the USSR was is frankly fucking disgusting and you should be ashamed to say such things.

Your previous post makes it clear that you're a /pol/tard. I just told you to go home.

>not outside of a materialist conception

oh so you mean he was correct

yikes

You need to go back to R*ddit my friend

The fact that you think you have any moral highground over the Nazi's is hilarious
You are literally defending a country that enslaved people, executed people on account of race, and starved its people to the point of people turning to eating each other. Compared to that, slavery to the Greater German Reich would have seemed like paradise to those victims of Stalin's regime.
Justify it however you want, do all the mental gymnastics you have to. You're an evil shitty person and you will never be anything other than a joke in the real world.

>implying communists are concerned with the real world
Did you read the thread? Or anything written by any communist, ever?

That's reality, dumb dumb.

The price of something is not determined by the amount of labour put into it. If I spend ten hours making mud pies, that doesn’t mean they’ll be worth anything. No one will buy them for anything, regardless of how much effor I put into making them. Prices fluctuate all the time and are based on variables more complex than simple supply and demand (which is what you lean in macroeconomics). Things like personal taste, the buyer’s income, prices of competition, and so on go into determining the price of a commodity.

Marxists don’t know shit about how markets work.

Read Aristotle's Politics. He BTFOs communism 2000 years before it even existed.

you are close to get it. I'll give you a hint:

price=/=value.

>“muh coup that there’s literally no evidence the US backed”

yes there is.
They used to do it all the time.

>price=\=value

Lmao says who? Go to any economics class, price and value are used interchangeably when discussing commodities.

This book.

Attached: politzer.jpg (768x1024, 54K)

Correction: cost =\= value

Price and value are the same thing.

>Marx never accounted for human nature
If human nature is inherently greedy, why would communism somehow be against human nature? Wouldn't it be the greed of all over the greed of the few?

Attached: ugh.jpg (470x470, 57K)

Get some Hegel under your belt, he's a lot more useful for Marx than Ricardo or Smith are (it doesn't hurt to be familiar with them, but unless you're trying to become a marxist economist it's not particularly necessary.)
And, frankly, Lenin's readings of Marx are also among the most accessible as well, so those are good supplements.

Regardless of those, you absolutely must read the 1844 manuscripts before Capital

Attached: kulty marks.png (500x536, 157K)

Attached: 0_nA3iCMzWgBJjlzXx.jpg (600x401, 82K)

The value is determined by socially necessary labor.
The more divorced from socially necessary labor a commodity becomes, the more unstable its exchange value (price) is.
Price isn't a simple function of supply and demand. Supply can increase while demand remains stable, without the price falling, for instance in the housing market where new homes are built all the time and instead of the price dropping they remain empty. Demand can increase without the supply changing with no increase in price, for instance seating in an event with non-transferable tickets where another act is announced. You can talk about downward and upward pressures or "true" prices, but then your theory becomes true definitionally, and unfalsifiable. What's to then stop any Marxian economist from talking of "true" prices?
All this is largely a moot point anyway since prices are simply exchange values in Marx, and not what he is talking about in Capital. Value in the LTV is neither exchange value nor use value. If you hope to have some sort of reply to Marxian economics, you should first try reading Marx.

Attached: puz3knwhrtg21.jpg (1297x1337, 166K)

No they're not retard.

>Marxist accuses neoclassical economics of being unfalsifiable
Tell me, how are commodity values transformed into market prices?

I'm not even a Marxist but jeeeshhh.

Attached: 1545379963056.jpg (551x550, 20K)

I don't think you understand what equilibrium prices are. Here's a hint: Marx had to wax Hegelian in order to explain a relationship between equilibrium "exchange" prices and his etherial social necessity.

I don't think you understand what equilibrium prices are. Here's a hint: Marx had to wax Hegelian in order to explain a relationship between equilibrium "exchange" prices and his ethereal social necessity.

There's not a single way.
Supply and demand accounts for some of the exchange value some of the time. Supply and demand are both of course mediated by labor in nearly every case.
Another factor affecting the price of the commodity is the total economic situation of the market which the commodity itself us embedded within. Since money is itself a medium of exchange, the price of a commodity in terms of that money is also based on the exchange value of that money itself. This should be completely obvious to you if you consider how inflation and deflation are possible, even as the actual total number of goods and service in an economy might not change that much.
Far from saying there is no answer or "it's complicated," price does not have a single source. If you think there is a single function where you input a bunch of variables and out falls a price, then you should line up for your Nobel, because every bourgeois speculator on the planet would love to hear it.

Equilibrium prices do not exist. Prices are not, and have never been, stable under capitalism. Supply and demand do not account for the entire market inflating and crashing every 20 years. Your model is an oversimplification that tells us very little about the market as a whole.

Attached: GK665QY.png (1440x1894, 916K)

>There's not a single way.
Marx seems to disagree, and for good reason in his case. If he were not able to identify a single mechanism by which commodity values were transformed into market prices, then his selection of labor as the unifying form of value would be rendered arbitrary. Thus, he tried to formulate an equation from which a transformation factor could be determined from commodities with different "organic compositions." What follows is a sesquicentennial corpus of neoclassical, neo-ricardian, and even Marxian economics explaining precisely why you can't fucking do that.
>demand is determined by labor
lel
>Equilibrium prices do not exist.
HAHAHAHAHAHA OH FUCK. Even Marx conceded that market prices have to fluctiate around some equilibrium based on labor value in his byzantine nightmare of a system. Also, it's pretty rich that you're complaining about factors of disequilibrium being unfalsifiable when Marx had to divorce market price from "exchange value."

>Marx seems to disagree, and for good reason in his case. If he were not able to identify a single mechanism by which commodity values were transformed into market prices, then his selection of labor as the unifying form of value would be rendered arbitrary. Thus, he tried to formulate an equation from which a transformation factor could be determined from commodities with different "organic compositions." What follows is a sesquicentennial corpus of neoclassical, neo-ricardian, and even Marxian economics explaining precisely why you can't fucking do that.
What a misreading. Labor can only be considered arbitrary if you wish to explain value in terms of price, which again, Marx isn't doing. Feel free to point where he is doing that since you seem to think you've got an excellent handle on a theory you don't even understand the basics of.
>lel
>commodity production never includes as a component other commodities
It's like you don't even understand basic economics
>HAHAHAHAHAHA OH FUCK. Even Marx conceded that market prices have to fluctiate around some equilibrium based on labor value in his byzantine nightmare of a system. Also, it's pretty rich that you're complaining about factors of disequilibrium being unfalsifiable when Marx had to divorce market price from "exchange value."
He never "conceded" this. Why don't you actually address the points being made? Try to produce commodities without labor. It's interesting that prices both increase and decrease after labor stoppage, don't you think? Why would the market be beholden to labor if labor is just an arbitrary input?
Whataboutism won't save your dismal pseudoscience. Show how prices are stable under capitalism. Demonstrate the equilibrium. Perhaps you'd like to talk about tulips? Or bank runs? What exactly is "proof of work?" Surely these are easy enough for you to explain without circularity and unscientific appeals to unfalsifiable ideal scenarios with perfect information and rational actors, yes?

Attached: 0oy8lzbt5rh21.png (602x717, 276K)

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch09.htm

Attached: 1548821953293.png (945x667, 365K)

amerishit red scare propaganda

China and the Soviet Union were self-admitted State Capitalist systems. The Communism of the 20th century was a literal meme meant to keep the proles from looking into Marx.

Read a history book and stop living in your delusional bubble.

PLEASE explain how fascism is such a radical and revolutionary break from a regular economy that it is no longer to be called capitalism.
Spoilers: you can't

half of your board IS from rebbit faggot

Yes they are. “Value” is just some poetic term. In the business world that means price. I’m a business student. People frequently confuse cost for price, which is what you were doing.

This has to be bait

People laugh about this but it's basically right. Marx was wrong about human nature and that means his conception of communism as the solution to social conflict is false.

For example, Marx believed that religion and violence were a result of alienation brought by living in a society with stratified social classes related to the forces of production. But now archeology shows that not only violence was widespread in pre-historic societies, but they even had religion and priestly castes. The superstructure precedes the base, therefore, the entire foundation of historical materialism and Marx's theory of alienation are wrong.

Gobekli Tepe by itself should have intellectually discredited Marxism just as heliocentrism and evolution discredited Christianity, if Marxism was actually a serious system of thought and not just some hermeneutic methodology used by far-left activists to give an intellectual veneer to their own political ambitions.

If commodities were sold at their exact value an average rate of profit would never emerge since since branches of industry have different ratios of labour employed. Market prices are the result of the redistribution of value which is necessary for an economy to function. Prices HAVE TO fluctuate but value sets certain boundaries for the real economy i.e. aggregate prices should be equalling aggregate value. How free floating are prices really? Remember Marx worked out most of his understanding of economics in the 1850s but corporatization really only fully began after his death.
I suppose you could defend the idea that there only exists capitalization upon expected future returns today and value isn't a necessary hypothesis since prices are not really constrained any more e.g. government will swoop in to maintain prices at inflated rates for the vested interests of their stakeholders... but even such a pseudo-economy where prices are mostly administered [today??] wouldn't abolish the real aggregate value/production problems.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_capital

Attached: stocks.jpg (1395x1491, 396K)

>Marx believed that religion and violence were a result of alienation brought by living in a society with stratified social classes related to the forces of production
There's no such claim about a lack of violence in pre-history anywhere in his work only class society fully emerges with agriculture... exploitation and social progress didn't occur in the palaeolithic because the infrastructure didn't exist. You're more likely to eat your enemies instead of use them as forced labour under management... religions develop to rationalize all this.

>business student

Maybe not in Marx's works per se, but in Anti-Duhring Engels explicitly denies the possibility of force being a determinant factor in the formation of class society, or it even being possible before it.

How? Marx even admires Aristotle.

You can totally start with DAS KAPITAL. I'd even advise it.

It matters more to move on from DAS KAPITAL,as opposed to reading econ and then moving onto DAS KAPITAL. Marxism is a good set of tools to think about econ, the masses, and many other topics, but it in no way provides a definitive solution or answer to any modern economic problem. It is entirely vague and way too ideologically radical to be useful for any specific problem like, say, public policy w/ respect to industrial monopolies, or population and immigration problems, protective tariffs and international trade, etc.

Basically, it really depends on why you want to read Marx. Coming from an econ perspective, usefulness, applicability is important, and Marx carries the same usefulness of creativity as, say, reading and talking about Hippocrates would have for a med student. But a med student will get nowhere, absolutely nowhere, by reading Hippocrates. He will not know how to cure any ilness by reading Hippocrates. He will only gain a certain insight into the art of medicine.

Same applies for Marx. It is an artistic effort to read him. His direct applicability is zero, especially today. But he does expand your mind about the art of econ.

This bait is actually pretty good, not gonna lie

Attached: Monopoly_Capital_(book).jpg (259x385, 17K)

>Price isn't a simple function of supply and demand. Supply can increase while demand remains stable, without the price falling, for instance in the housing market where new homes are built all the time and instead of the price dropping they remain empty.

That's called stickiness and prices do fall in the housing market where new homes are built. In fact research shows little downward stickiness in housing markets as refusing to lower prices often leads to even less demand for the unit.

>Equilibrium prices do not exist. Prices are not, and have never been, stable under capitalism. Supply and demand do not account for the entire market inflating and crashing every 20 years. Your model is an oversimplification that tells us very little about the market as a whole.

Equilibrium is not the same thing as stable. Of course there is little stability, it is the nature of demand. Equilibrium shifts with supply and demand.

Okay, galaxybrain microeconomists.
Explain Tulip Mania. Do you think speculative bubbles accurately reflect the value of the commodity that is being speculated on? What about futures? Debt bundling? You believe that there is a demand for debt, and the price of a debt bundle accurately reflects market demand for debt and its value to society?
You think the market demands debt, and that this debt market provides a value? Do you think that the value of an epipen is thousands of dollars, and that the makework and monopolistic control over production and distribution reflects the value of the epipen in terms of the amount required and amount produced? Do you believe the equilibrium price of a private firefighting force standing outside bargaining with you as your house and family burns is all of your possessions and indentured servitude?
What's the equilibrium price of child pornography? An unwilling human sex slave from Nicaragua? Of fentanyl? Why is the price different if you buy it from a street dealer vs a pharmacy, if the price reflects the value?

That's 15 questions mate fuck off. Make clear, concise arguments, it's really not that difficult. Don't just couch your vague, unformed ideas into retarded questions one after the other and expect people to think that's a good argument

>hurr durr if money was REALLY the reward for hard work why don't sweatshop workers and CEOs earn the same wage if they work just as hard????

What's bait about it? Approaches to econ that are consistent and make sense (at least in their own proposed systems), and are at the same time drastically different from capitalism are really.. non existant. It proposes a complete overhaul of our current systems, and lays down the groundwork for how a completely new one could be built, based on entirely different mechanisms. AND, one of the most central mechanisms (or like, THE central mechanism) is that if someone is working on something, he should kinda own it. A laborer should earn what his work is worth, not what the company can get away with paying him.

But ... it is incredibly vague as far as books about econ go. It really is more art than science. A lot of filler, not a lot of nutrition. It is incredibly interesting though, it's no wonder most economists are very familiar with marxist theory. (political scientists, historians, anthropologists, and other fields in the humanities as well.) It gives you several lenses through which to look at society, and the function of money and the economy. Interesting lenses that you really cannot find anywhere else.

Yea what's bait about my perspective that it's an incredibly interesting book to read, but given how the world works, is ultimately futile in terms of advancing your knowledge of econ?

You started arguing with a straw man when you said:
>Price isn't a simple function of supply and demand.
I specifically said that price is determined by more than simple supply and demand.

>Demand can increase without the supply changing with no increase in price
This is dead wrong. In fact, demand exceeding supply is precisely what increases price. If I have a limited supply of commodities and many people want them, I’ll raise the price so only the richest people will buy. That’s why Super Bowl seats are so expensive. If demand was low they’d lower the prices to sell more.

>You can talk about downward and upward pressures or "true" prices
I never said anything about “true” prices. For that matter, what even is a “true” price?

>Value in the LTV is neither exchange value nor use value
Then what is it? You say I’m wrong but don’t tell me why. Marx isn’t taken seriously in any business departments. All his theories have been debunked. The only people who like him are young revolutionaries.

>If you hope to have some sort of reply to Marxian economics, you should first try reading Marx.
You got something as basic as supply and demand wrong, which even I criticized for being an oversimplification of how economics work. You’re not in any position to tell me what to read.

>not responding to someone’s argument
Bro, just admit you’re wrong.

This is dumb shit.

Questions aren't arguments. You could answer all of them easily if you were making an argument that made sense, but you aren't. You won't touch any of those questions because you understand each of those instances being asked about are clear examples of labor divergence from price.

>>hurr durr if money was REALLY the reward for hard work why don't sweatshop workers and CEOs earn the same wage if they work just as hard????
This, but unironically. The entire point of capital is that the wage system represents an exploitation by the bourgeois class inflicted on the worker in the form of surplus labor value extraction. If workers were being paid what they were worth, it couldn't be profitable to hire them. Noone with a basic understanding of economics would enter into a contract to break even or at a loss when they can avoid it. Since workers don't get to set the terms of their employment (employee liquidity vs employer market power), the employers are the ones dictating the terms, including pay.

You explain Tulip mania first. Do you know what happened? No, that's why they're bubbles. The market isn't perfectly efficient but you already know that. Futures and debt bundling are bretty gud and are very important parts of finance markets which empirically improve capital allocation. Do you know what capital allocation is? Do you understand how interest rates affect capital?
Yes the market demands debt. Yes the debt market provides a value. Look up bonds for the simplest explanation. In fact the value of an epipen is much more than thousands of dollars to someone in anaphalactic shock. You're just throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks

Where supply curve meets demand curve dumbass. What's the Labor value of CP? You know that fentanyl is considered an essential medicine?

>if the price reflects the value
No one is saying that. In fact it reflects how little you know since your example demonstrates why LTV is wrong. Value is determined by your willingness to pay not labor involved, as such there is no fixed value of labor. It's purely a negotiation of the value to the seller and the value to the buyer and market forces push it to an equilibrium.

The strangest part of all this is these questions are classic proofs of why LTV doesn't make sense.

>If workers were being paid what they were worth, it couldn't be profitable to hire them.
Who determines what they’re “worth” anyway? They’re paid exactly what they’re worth because labour is completely voluntary and negotiable. Seriously, do you have any graphs to explain your Marxist beliefs? Any mathematical formulas? Anything that hasn’t been debunked 50+ years ago? This is all pure conjecture.

>No one is saying that.
Really? Maybe you should scroll up some more.

>The market isn't perfectly efficient but you already know that.
It isn't efficient at all. It's in fact, inefficient.
>Futures and debt bundling are bretty gud and are very important parts of finance markets which empirically improve capital allocation.
They represent built-in gambling and exploitation. How is that good? Why do you want an economy based on playing roulette and slavery?
>Do you understand how interest rates affect capital?
lol
Do you understand how accumulation affects it?
>Yes the market demands debt.
Does it demand slavery and prison?
>Yes the debt market provides a value.
To society or to the class of lenders?
>In fact the value of an epipen is much more than thousands of dollars to someone in anaphalactic shock.
So the price doesn't actually reflect the value at all? Would you admit the market incentivizes exploiting people in medical crisis?
>You're just throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks
Nice hypothesis. Care to elaborate?

>What's the Labor value of CP?
There is none, because it isn't a socially necessary commodity.
>You know that fentanyl is considered an essential medicine?
Yes, and the price doesn't reflect the social necessity of it, because the demand matches the social necessity in addition to people who demand it based on physical addiction.
>In fact it reflects how little you know since your example demonstrates why LTV is wrong.
Point to where. You can't because you're hopelessly confused about what the LTV actually is.
>Value is determined by your willingness to pay not labor involved
Hey look, you just claimed value is equal to price again!
>as such there is no fixed value of labor
There is, because there is a general amount of labor that society requires to meet its needs, and this labor has an average time it takes for a laborer to perform it. The demand for necessary labor is social.
>It's purely a negotiation of the value to the seller and the value to the buyer and market forces push it to an equilibrium.
That's literally never how prices work in the real world. Do you actually believe people go on Amazon and haggle?

>The strangest part of all this is these questions are classic proofs of why LTV doesn't make sense.
It would seem like that to someone who doesn't know what the LTV is, despite it being posted already in this very thread.

Imagine actually thinking labor is voluntary and negotiable for the individual

Thank you for making a normal argument! It's so nice to read something that doesn't sound like it was written by an edgy 16 year old who just watched a youtube video about capitalism and got really excited for a quick sec.

Okay buddy, believe what you want.

Muh graphs lmao. This is your mind neoclassical economics

Thanks for commenting on the tone of my post rather than the content! I'm sure you have a lot of important insights to share based on your absolute unwillingness to engage with the topic you're commenting on in good faith.

Brute force isn't ever generally the formative principle even if it becomes integral... whoever has the more effective production base for weaponry and time for theorizing will win regardless of who's more brutal. Force wasn't necessary for agriculture to emerge but once it was understood it allowed new forms of servitude not possible by earlier societies based on hunting/gathering.

I did share my insights mate.

>I'm sure you have a lot of important insights to share based on your absolute unwillingness to engage with the topic you're commenting on in good faith.
Syntactically ambiguous. Consider revising.

It's a matter of accounting really. You would need a theory of what profit and wages actually are firstly. You would believe wages are the result of buying and selling what otherwise would be free time and perhaps utilizing this time more productively than otherwise. It must be cheaper to employ someone than not to and this is the case because of competition, there's a lot more sellers than buyers. Why is capital buying labour instead of labour buying capital? Particular historical factors made this the case. It's a long history of ownership and judicial transformations. It's always a free negotiation between two unequals, equality can only ever be a legal fiction. You really have multiple organized entities trying to get something for notting and the business community is much better at it: unemployment is profitable so they get it, intellectual property which has no marginal costs gets very favourable treatment, etc, etc.

>labor is completely voluntary and negotiable
Have you ever had a minimum wage job? You can't decide not to work when you need money, and you can't try and get a deal that accommodates any specific needs you might have, because big companies have policies which require that they treat all their employees roughly the same. Ultimately, under capitalism, your boss decides what kind of work you do, and how much, and by what parameters you measure success or failure.

>Say the line, commie!

Attached: americanlaughter.jpg (582x600, 63K)

Yes, I'm well aware of Marx's category of capital invented to extricate himself from the awkward position of admitting that value can be created by means other than labor.
>different branches of industry have different ratios of labor employed
If this is truly the means by which capitalists arrive at competitive market prices from different amounts of "living labor" (or whatever arbitrary category Marx created to stick to his thesis that labor exclusively created the economic value of a commodity), then there surely should be a set of equations which holds true for all circumstances with different "organic compositions," yes?