I need to get a decent grasp of this Santa Claus lookin motherfucker and his philosophy

>Marx chose to develop a value theory based on labour, and it is here that his analysis went wrong.
Wrong. Marx undertook a critique of political economy, a critique not based on some original "theories" of his, but one which took the existing categories of political economy as its starting point. He never "developed" a "value theory" of his own.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazy_argument
Also, one can't "incite" a proletarian revolution.

Well since you stated his philosophy, not "economic" or "sociological" or anything else, you need to know he started out as a Feuerbachian humanist but after reading Max Stirner he realized that humanism wasn't viable and went "anti-philosophic" and dropped any real discussion of it and embraced a form of scientism

nonsense, Marx has remained a humanist for his entire life

>He never "developed" a "value theory" of his own.
Nevertheless, once you disprove the "labour theory of value", everything else in marxist economics dissolves as well.

>I don't trust over simplified video essays .
>Please provide me with an over simplified Yea Forums post
what level of retardation are you on my man

There's clearly an original theory of historical development in the volumes of capital that doesn't square with the classical dismal science of diminishing returns.

I don't see it. Everything he wrote later in life was concerned with "natural science" e.g. anthropology/ethnology was what he was reading up on before he died.

Not really, the entire theory of class struggle can still be built upon a marginalist basis if you must.
econospeak.blogspot.com/2017/05/immiseration-revisited-four-phases-of.html

>prolific author who changed the world
>all you need to know is he made a joke to his friend once

>marginalist basis
No, neoclassical paradigms are complete shit as well, because circularity, reswitching and "Cambridge capital controversy".

Attached: Cambridge controversy.jpg (531x823, 204K)

His point is that Marx claimed that the "false class consciousness" was going to crack under the inevitable breakdown of capitalism and the proletarian masses were going to rise up, that it was essentially the logical endgame.

Yet it never quite seemed to come in his life time and 30ish years later, the bolsheviks undeiable proponents of Marx set in motion a quite artificial and superficial revolution and subsequent dictatorship under the guise of communism.

Nowhere has what Marx described occurred organically, or developed when when artificially attempted.

To most this would be a sign that what marx talked about concerning false class consciousness, the chains, plucking the flower of religion, removing the camera obscura of earth/heaven hierarchy etc, was not actually as accurate as ardent marxists liked to believe.

It has become completely removed from its original interpretation and needs to be left in the past. Yet try and do a humanities course without marxism being shoved down your throat.
Completely impossible and infuriating, much like Freud in psychology, pushed by professors who find it easier to talk about the history of a subject than its actual contemporary applications, because they're hacks who never made it.

I just mean a formally logical justification against how labour markets currently work. The case can still be made if you want to play that game.

There are no "marxist economics". Or if there are, they have nothing to do with Marx.

Marx already "disproven" "labor theory of value" and the rest of political economy, demonstrating that capitalism is contradictory and can't be rationally grasped through such theorizing. Instead, those contradictions can only be resolved through revolutionary practice.

>But that is not enough for my critic. He feels himself obliged to metamorphose _____my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into an historico-philosophic theory of the marche generale imposed by fate upon every people_____, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself, in order that it may ultimately arrive at the form of economy which will ensure, together with the greatest expansion of the productive powers of social labour, the most complete development of man. But I beg his pardon. (He is both honouring and shaming me too much.) [...] By studying each of these forms of evolution separately and then comparing them one can easily find the clue to this phenomenon, _____but one will never arrive there by the universal passport of a general historico-philosophical theory_____, the supreme virtue of which consists in being super-historical.
--- Marx

>I don't see it. Everything he wrote later in life was concerned with "natural science" e.g. anthropology/ethnology was what he was reading up on before he died.
Everything he wrote was still concerned with communism. I don't really get your point. Do I need to decide that humanism is "not viable" before I can study anthropology or economics? He had already been studying the latter before he wrote Paris Manuscripts.

Marx never wrote about "false consciousness". marxists.org/subject/marxmyths/joseph-mccarney/article.htm

>tfw have to pay for his works

He wasn't trying to justify communism on humanistic values after Stirner destroyed Feuerbach's philosophising. My point is Marx didn't believe in "humanism" later in life as a philosophy, he wanted to demonstrate "scientifically" that the forms of social relations that existed were historically transient based on "necessary" historical stages of development. If you're going to try to understand objective historical states of affairs you can't be looking just for what you want to see as some humanist.
Also he didn't "disprove" any "labour theory of value" he obviously thought he was in line with and developing what came before him... Malthus or Ricardo never even talked in that way about themselves exactly. His entire theory of historical development is based on human labour as a cosmological negentropic force... it might sound extremely goofy and attacks on the second law of thermodynamics might not be respected by the current methodological establishment but he might also have just been wrong about everything.

>go into bookstore
>"smart thinking" section
>communist manifesto
>£6.99
>book entitled "how capitalism has failed"
>£9.99
hmmmm

>There are no "marxist economics".
>Marx already "disproven" "labor theory of value" and the rest of political economy, demonstrating that capitalism is contradictory and can't be rationally grasped through such theorizing.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_problem
You were saying?

Marx may have never used the term, I'll give you that but marxists us that term to sum up what Marx expressed, I noticed you skipped passed everything else including the camera obscura, one-sided view of religion he had though.

This is my point, not only do marxists in action, in textbook and in political form obscure marxism to their own ends but even someone who seems to be defending him has to cherry pick.

He was a failed prophet, let him be a footnote.

>I don't have much time and I don't trust over simplified video essays .
Then learn to speed read.
Prof. Richard Wolff does both books and videos and makes it all very easy to understand

Are mentally challenged ?
I asked for useful sources and short introductions.

>He wasn't trying to justify communism on humanistic values after Stirner destroyed Feuerbach's philosophising.
Nor before. He was never trying to "justify communism" on any "eternal verities", as he liked to call them.

>My point is Marx didn't believe in "humanism" later in life as a philosophy
But he did.

>he wanted to demonstrate "scientifically" that the forms of social relations that existed were historically transient based on "necessary" historical stages of development.
(1) One can do that while remaining a humanist. (2) You're overstating the case with this talk of "necessity" and such, but I already addressed that by quoting the man, who himself said that his historical sketch shouldn't be treated as a "general historico-philosophical theory" that unveils laws that work akin to fate.

>he obviously thought he was in line with and developing what came before him
Only in the sense that he assumed the existing categories of political economy and "developed" them to show how they fail to rationally grasp capitalism.

>His entire theory of historical development is based on human labour as a cosmological negentropic force... it might sound extremely goofy and attacks on the second law of thermodynamics might not be respected by the current methodological establishment but he might also have just been wrong about everything.
nice meme

Thanks for proving my point by pointing out one of those contradictions.

>Marx may have never used the term, I'll give you that but marxists us that term to sum up what Marx expressed
No, they use it and many other terms to project their little dumb pet theories on Marx.

>I noticed you skipped passed everything else
Because your post was generally not worth addressing. I only responded to the "false consciousness" meme because I happened to have the link at hand.

>not only do marxists in action, in textbook and in political form obscure marxism to their own ends
Sure. Fuck Marxists.

>but even someone who seems to be defending him has to cherry pick.
The quality of the "defense" is proportional to the quality of the "attack".

If there's anything the co-op man makes easy to understand, then it's definitely not the work of Marx or communism in general.

>Thanks for proving my point by pointing out one of those contradictions.
Except that it is only YOU who is saying that pointing out one of the contradictions somehow proves that Marx is right.
Marx was trying to give an exact solution, so you can fuck off, and the only thing this shit contradicts is his own theory. The very theory that he tried to present as being better at scientific explanation of the capitalist economy than other economy theories.

You're just an incompetent buffoon, you know?

>(1) One can do that while remaining a humanist. (2) You're overstating the case with this talk of "necessity" and such, but I already addressed that by quoting the man, who himself said that his historical sketch shouldn't be treated as a "general historico-philosophical theory" that unveils laws that work akin to fate.
1) humanism is ahistorical
2) his work was never completed but it was what he was working towards

The buffoon is the one who believes that the purpose of the critique of political economy was to show how political economy succeeds at its goal, and not how it can't succeed because it breaks down under the weight of its contradictions, which can only be transcended in revolutionary practice and not by improving the theory.

1) No
2) "No I wasn't" --- Karl Marx

And by "No I wasn't" I of course mean to paraphrase "ONE WILL =====NEVER===== ARRIVE THERE BY THE UNIVERSAL PASSPORT OF A GENERAL HISTORICO-PHILOSOPHICAL THEORY"

What a shit thread

>the purpose of the critique of political economy

The notion that Marx was concerned with the qualitative rather than quantitative aspects of capitalism is apologetic and unfounded. For 19th century marxists, the magic of Marxism lay precisely in the novelty of its scientific structure. Its historical laws of motion seemed as inevitable as the movement of the stars. Also, Marx himself initially expressed fascination with Dühring, because Dühring was the guy who showed him that scientific (non-utopian) socialism can possibly be formulated.
To argue that Marx was not concerned with prices is to argue that his key theses about capitalist development – including the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, the immiseration of the proletariat and the tendency of capitalism to generate recurrent profitability crises – were meaningless gibberish. These tendencies can be expressed only in terms of price ratios. To theorize them is to theorize prices.

Sure, Marx was concerned with prices. He was concerned will the categories of political economy, since it's rather hard to enact a critique of a thing while at the same time ignoring the content of said thing. Do we have to sink to the level of pasting passages written by retarded people (economists)?

>He was concerned will the categories of political economy, since it's rather hard to enact a critique of a thing while at the same time ignoring the content of said thing
1. Marx was concerned with providing a model that can in fucking numbers fucking show the immiseration of proletariat. He was concerned with a model, that fucking works.
2. The "Transformation problem" is detrimental to this problem. It fucking disproves his fucking model. He cannot show you the immiseration of proletariat now. His own model doesn't work now.
3. But when somebody shows this to a moron like you, the moron starts screeching like: "Yep. It's a contradiction. That means Marx is right!".

That leads us to the question: how often were you dropped on your head during your childhood?