Holy shit Marxism BTFO

how do you even measure labor value?
lets say someone makes a shirt. according to marx the price of the shirt is cotton plus labor.
but it doesnt take into account marketing, advertising, distribution, etc...
the fact that most shirts are made by machines makes this calculation even more difficult.

Marxism isn’t even real economics, it’s an ideology, and a discredited one at that.

Seriously, why would I ever bother looking at historical materialism or the LTV when I can literally just look at the empirical data? The only way to discuss Marxism is through rhetoric and conjectures. Modern economics is based on empirical evidence and mathematical models, both of which Marx lacks in his works. It’s pointless.

Alright, empirically determine what gives a product it's value.

What the fuck am I reading

value is subjective. everyone has different preferences and the free market figures out a price. it's about as empirical a process as you can get

>and the free market figures out a price

Attached: when it regulates itself.jpg (1280x720, 115K)

Ok, retard.

This must be a bait, right?

>$30
>out of stock
based belle should ask for more money while she can get away with it, the market will soon be flooded with roastie water

Gamers need to be eliminated

>woahh this retardation so contrarian and basde epic
you should an hero

>except for some city council woman in Seattle.
Or in the institutions of the largest nation in history.

Supply and demand, retard. The only thing that matters in economics is prices. "Value" is a subjective term that belongs in philosophy or something. This is why no reputable economist takes Marx seriously.

No pls explain. t. third user

>price = value
Oh man this board gets me some hearty chuckles sometimes

Did he imply that?..

pay $50 for my shit

t. didn't read past the first sentence

"No."

He implied price "matters" more than value, which means that he has no idea what he's talking about and can't tell the difference between them.
Ok buddy

Marx's Capital is a CRITIQUE of political economy. The fact that his contribution to the discipline was virtually zero means about as much as the fact that Lavoisier's contribution to alchemy was virtually zero. So while technically true, the actual meaning is diametrically opposed to what the author thinks it is.

Marketing and advertising are not needed to sell the shirt as a commodity, so they don't come into its value. Transportation from the point of production to the point of sale is just as much labour as the labour of making the shirt.
And besides, you can't "calculate" value directly. The only form of appearance of value is price, so the only thing your calculations can be based on are prices.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm
>By what is the price of a commodity determined?
>By the competition between buyers and sellers, by the relation of the demand to the supply, of the call to the offer.
If he's so useless then why are you repeating what he said 150 years ago?

Attached: 0445-01_TP.jpg (300x514, 24K)

Your criticism doesnt work because "value" itself presupposes a hierarchy of what matters. Prices at least portend to be empirical. Talk about economics, talk about moral philosophy, and know when you mix the two.

>Despite the massive intellectual feat that Kepler's laws represent, the heliocentric contribution to astrology can be readily summarized as virtually zero.
This is how "economists" sounds, only difference being we haven't yet destroyed the society that gives them legitimacy

Well that isnt a marxian contribution. So technically he could still be useless even if he was repeating what was well known in economics at the time

Economists are literal cancer and should be executed desu

So all he says is that everything is wrong, without ever explaining what and why, and then claims Marx is debunked? Conservatives are incredibly retarded.

Attached: zizek_1.jpg (1417x1417, 280K)

>empirical data
this must be bait

Attached: cringe.gif (480x480, 2.56M)

>the free market figures out a price
like Insulin costing thousands in the US and 12 dollars in Canada, right, jackass?

Attached: implying_7.jpg (1080x1080, 83K)

holy shit leave America for once in your life you absolute mongrel

>Marketing and advertising are not needed to sell the shirt as a commodity, so they don't come into its value.
But it comes to the price, someone needs to pay for that and that someone is you. Even if you are essenitally paying money for hurting yourself.

oh this is just sad

Attached: 1544146904914.jpg (255x201, 16K)

>If he's so useless then why are you repeating what he said 150 years ago?
Actually Marx is repeating what Adam Smith said.

Pseudoscience isn't a serious critique

it absolutely is a marxist contribution, because, coupled with dialectic materialism, it lays the foundation of a scientific analysis of historical relations between people through the lens of socioeconomics.

Prices are empirical, value is not. That's why it matters more in economics.

And Adam Smith lived in a time where economics was a branch of moral philosophy which didn't see any sense in accumulating wealth for the sake of it.

ive thought about how we would go about measuring automation and I think marxist economics would be the only one that could give us an answer.
A machines productive capacity could be measured in terms of human labor power.
So for example an excavator could have the power of 20 human diggers or something like that.

what is preventing more insulin from coming on to the US market and closing this gap?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faux_frais_of_production

And despite that Adam Smith still contributed more to economic thought than Capital did. Goes to show how useless Marx is.

>Marxism is scientific

Attached: laughing.jpg (600x536, 81K)

>prices are empirical
you don't actually believe that, do you?

Attached: bait_1.jpg (625x626, 33K)

Define "professional economics". I think Marx contributed much to an understanding of depreciation and sunk costs but it's obvious why more professional academics would want to avoid those questions.

>the specifics of this proof
What proof in particular?

What was Adam Smiths contribution to economics?

Your constant parroting implies that you have brain damage. Take some lead.

what do you think, idiot. big Pharma has monopolised the insulin market through patent laws that forbid foreign insulin from being sold in pharmacies on US soil. Another example of the free market "figuring out the price".

Understanding automation in the sense of Marxism provides the greatest example of the inability of capitalism itself: while production is maximized to the point where human labor is minimized, capitalist society would be doomed to collapse under automation because the elimination of large chunks of the human workforce would mean they would get no wages, and no wages would mean that all consumption under markets would collapse, which would lead to a civilizational crisis.
The US itself, coupled with various legalistic measures that guarantees the rights of production only be licensed out to certain individuals who can use said rights to limit production to create artificial scarcity and generate further profit.

not what I said but well done on proving how little you know about the topic at hand

Economics is the branch of social science that tries the hardest at being empirical. Marxism is wholly un-empirical. Not that that's intrinsically a bad thing.
That's literally all that the original quote is saying.
Liberal Programs do not constitute Marxist economics. They trace their lineage to Adam smith, and Fichte, not Hegel or Marx.
I literally just got back from China lol.

>Understanding automation in the sense of Marxism provides the greatest example of the inability of capitalism itself: while production is maximized to the point where human labor is minimized, capitalist society would be doomed to collapse under automation because the elimination of large chunks of the human workforce would mean they would get no wages, and no wages would mean that all consumption under markets would collapse, which would lead to a civilizational crisis.
If you think this is how capitalism works then you haven't really understood marx. For example, try to explain why UBI is such a popular notion among capitalists today.

I'm still waiting for the capitalist system to collapse with a secular decline in overall profit and the separation of society into two distinct camps of bourgeois and proletarians, with a concentration of capital going into the hands of shrinking minority to the exclusion of small and medium enterprises. Any day now.

Attached: 34.jpg (630x399, 53K)

>a scientific analysis of historical relations between people through the lens of socioeconomics.
lmao you people are fucking delusional

I'm still waiting for you to stop being a bootlicking wagecuck faggot. Any day now.

how is that a free market? the situation you describe is what happens when central planners are allowed to fix the price of goods by excluding free market forces, ie what Marxists want.

How does this debunk Marx? Modern economics is indifferent to Kant and Plato and Heidegger and Steven Hawking and Charles Darwin and Ted Lazscinsky and Rene Descartes, does that mean they are all debunked?

It isn't the job of economists to analyse the ethics of capitalism or any economic system for that matter. That's the job of a philosopher. Which is what marx was.

Economics is a part of politics and politics is public morality or ethics.

not an argument

>what Marxists want
kek

>Economics is a part of politics
Leaving aside the debate, try telling this to modern "economics" technocrats. To them, economics is straight-up above physics in terms of discovering the unchanging properties of neutral reality.

not an argument either

>implying the scientific method isn't based on materialism, and empirical evidence

Attached: shrek1.jpg (1200x794, 160K)

>For example, try to explain why UBI is such a popular notion among capitalists today.
UBI generally isn't, and it's prevalence is more a pretext to privitizing what little remains of the concessions the socdems got in the 40's and 50's to act as a way to stifle communist organizing. UBI as is currently advocated also cannot really cover for the costs of living when you factor in all the expenses of the common people, like maintenance costs of vehicles needed for transportation or medical costs under privatized insurance. Under current capitalist mechanisms, any kind of implementation of UBI will just be an assurance to the capitalist class that there is always a baseline of exploitation that they can maintain to extract profit, but the capitalist class isn't a collaborative class - they will all try to keep up maximum exploitation of the proles at all times, thus making UBI insufficient for the costs of living.

In short: UBI is a meme third-position stance held mostly by NEETs and libertarian moralists and would inevitably fail even if implemented because of the framework of capitalism itself, and that's before accounting for the generally reactionary nature of the bourgs and the fact that they trend towards wanting to repeal any social safety net.

Sowell is just saying that Marxist economics isn't really used at all outside of an academic context. While true, it's important to consider that Sowell himself was more or less an academic economist, and not a very good one at that. Really just the pot calling the kettle black.

>implying economics isnt a social relation and is instead an entirely separate subject

Attached: 1552212639242.gif (382x308, 1.47M)

Economists actually have an answer to this.
The negative externalities of being a retarded e-whore aren't payed by the e-whore or thirsty assholes with too much money.
The suggestion is usually to tax or regulate such behaviour.

>try to explain why UBI is such a popular notion among capitalists today
Because they're stupid. I mean the ones that want an UBI that's higher than the usual unemployment benefits. Those who aren't stupid just see UBI as a replacement for the latter.
It's not a matter of what "notions" some random bougie retards get. There's no shortage of those who are so stupid as to inadvertently arrive at "notions" that are undermining them as a class.
Look at what gets actually implemented for a significant period of time. Not at "notions" or some short-lived experiments.

Bulk of his work was explicitely about political economy. His thesis was about inherent instability of capitalism. It´s no coincidence he regained popularity after neoliberalism was left to reign supreme for four decades.

Think about marginal costs without patents and copyrights. Good luck profiting when everything has next to none. Organizing investment on individual return means you need a strong state to invent new forms of property to make business possible.

Not who you're responding to but universal basic income is acceptable to certain interests because they don't want full employment driving up wages but want to sell goods at high prices nonetheless. Of course a promised government income isn't dynamic enough of a fiscal policy to deal with all the turns in the business cycle.

Welfare is more targeted. Handing out cash isn't a replacement for welfare.

by all means explain how prices aren't empirical, assuming you know that empiricism is that which is reached through experience and objective measures rather than by pure logic, which is literally how prices are reached.

When will you realize that Marcism is a fucking walking Shibboleth? It's a doomsday cult that keeps making spurious predictions about the end of the economic relationships as we know them coming on a particular day. It's like being a Jehova's witness in 2019.

Marx has arguably lost in popularity the last four decades, not gained it.

I smell autism

Attached: 1491dd02cac04352285f810f47503e67-imagejpeg.jpg (300x360, 29K)

>please please please stop liking the thing that I don't like please

>It´s no coincidence he regained popularity after neoliberalism was left to reign supreme for four decades.
What dimension are you living in

>Welfare is more targeted. Handing out cash isn't a replacement for welfare.
Then it won't get implemented.

Expected temporary effect of the fall of Stalin's little pet project. The fire rises again.

utility
gimme another one

>Adam Smith's entire argument is that free trade is good
>the US implements free trade
>it starts losing out to China who does not believe in free trade
>along comes Donald Trump and enacts tarrifs agaisnt China
>all of the sudden the US starts recovering and China starts freaking out
makes you think

>mfw people think value = price
>mfw people think econ isn't a social relation
>mfw people ignore empirical evidence to support neoliberal tier economics
>mfw people ignore all criticisms of the current economics system and claim to btfo their opponents.
>mfw people think Marx was "just a philosipher"
>mfw people who criticise Marx have never read any of his writings
>mfw libertarians unironically buy into neoclassical bullshit
>mfw people think UBI is unironically good
>mfw America was a testing ground for neoliberal econ and its been nothing but a failure and yet libertarians still defend it.
>mfw the everything bubble is going to pop and only Marxists have been warning about it until recently.

Attached: che.jpg (619x631, 54K)

I unironically sympathize with marxism as an ethical framework. I just wish that you would stop pretending it has any value in the discipline of practical economics.

The value of economics for economic actors (not the impotent fucks in academia) lies in it's ability to make accurate and useful predictions about the state of the economy in the future. Marxist economics makes predictions, but they are not useful. Seeing as capitalism has yet to collapse, there is no way to evaluate their accuracy or utility.

In the west he certainly gained it, apart from maybe Italy which still had Marxists in the 1980s. In the east too since plenty of boomers faced disilusion once they realized capitalism doesn´t mean "free shit asap" and that it has it´s flaws too.

Even if they were stupid, that doesn't mean their stupidity spontaneously makes them arrive at notions that would inherently destroy their system (according to the logic of capitalism being troubled by increasing automation). The very point of the lack of class consciousness among the bourgeoisie is that they can't help but arrive at notions that reproduce the order that forms their consciousness, which is their own order. This is why false consciousness (and hence the possibility of class consciousness) is only a notion that applies to workers.

Capital constantly revolutionizes itself. There is no alternative in which it randomly self-destructs, where the "system collapses". Every collapse in world economy is nothing more than an opportunity for Capital to reinvent itself and resume its valorization. That you think increasing automation is somehow outside of this, and "by itself" would do away with Capital means you're treating the social world the same way the "economics" dudes do, as if it was a natural process divorced from the active participation of its constituents.

"""muh marginal utility.""" Get your econ theories out of the fucking void and instead do some general empirical observation of real life economics.

>The value of economics for economic actors
Gee, it´s like there´s a difference between political economy and private economy.

Please take classes past econ 101, maybe take a class outside of burgerland where people are actually willing to teach you about Marx

>caused by government regulation
played yourself

Thanks for actualising this shit thread.

what color underwear am I wearing

All economics are "ideological".
(((Marginalism))) was literally and EXPLICITLY invented to justify capitalists' profits. It wasn't some scientific discovery that later empirical experiments proven true. Go read what John Clark actually written about "marginal productivity" and its purpose.

There were for sure more Marxists around in '68 and the following decades than there is today, unless you want to count every woke latte progressive liberal as a Marxist.

Absolutely 100% fucking not. The relationship between supply and demand is only retroactively dialectical, and you have to divorce it from its empirical conclusions to even get there. The relation between SnD and prices was dogmatic welllllll before Capital. You fucking midwit.

Kys

Marx's legitimate criticisms of capitalism =/= economics as a discipline that is useful to economic actors making decisions

an hero, newfag.

That's not a free market you fucking retard

not the same guy but uhhhhhh. Gray or blue?
>The criticism of capitalist economics is ignored so they can continue the current system.
It really makes you think.

Reread the original Sowell quote. Does it actually look like he's talking about political economy?

>Then it won't get implemented.
What do you mean? Various vested interests, such as tech, really like the idea and can lobby hard. UBI won't work though because it gives little control over spending, it's the same delusion that thinks negative interest rates will work. Welfare spending is actual spending.

If you're claiming copyrights and patents are not necessary you better bring your complaints to the business community.

What does competition turn into if companies are allowed to buy each other when they get big enough. That's literally what competition creates. If you weren't such a mind numbingly dumb faggot you would realize what happens in observable reality

I think the argument is that there are more marxists today (2019) that there were in say, 1995 or 2003. So the sense is that marxism right now is picking up steam.

I don't really know whether that's true, and besides, a fuckton of academic "marxists" are phonies anyway so it doesn't really mean much besides the confirmation that there could be an aesthetic fad of "marxism".

Holy shit it's blue

>mfw libertarians only have copypastas for arguments
>mfw libertarians unironically believe their arguments

Attached: fat_yoshi2.jpg (402x452, 83K)

Branko Milanovic has written a pretty devastating 2-part blogpost about how Marx is only notable because his writings served as the official state ideology of one of the world's only two superpowers. Otherwise he'd just be a semi-obscure proto-sociologist of the 19th century.

Even as a leftist I think he's right about this. You see it all the time in leftist circles: You are encouraged to "read Marx" not for his explanatory power, but as a sort of rite of passage. There are plenty more recent social theorists you can read whose works are more relevant for the 21st century.
Reading two pages of Fredric Jameson or Mark Fisher is more genuinely insightful than an entire chapter of Das Kapital.

The criticism of capitalism is fine and good, but it isn't really relevant until it self-actualizes. In the present context, it's useless for making money, which is what Sowell is talking about in the original quote.

This is the true power of dialectical materialism in action

A central part of the neoliberal project is the erasure of political economy. All social ills are reframed as the personal issues of individuals.

this desu desu

also read Noys, Land, Greer, etc.

I understand that point that it contributes nothing to the modern capitalist economy as to making more money, it does however lay out the contradictions that will eventually lead to the downfall of a commodity production driven system. One of the few times I could see it be applied to todays commodity driven economy is predicting crashes.

Marx advocated for free trade though

>Marx is not popular with mainstream economics, therefore we shouldn't care about him because he's not popular
This is the same tactic they use for dismissing the Cambridge controversy
>Well, we (mainstream economists) stopped caring about it even though we were proven wrong, so there's no point in thinking about it because it's not popular with mainstream economics
The tacit assumption that mainstream economics, as a "science", automatically gravitates towards privileging the best science, in a fake analogy with what happened in physics and biology at the turn of the 20th century, is the ideological sham used by economists (and all "social scientists" of mainstream technocratic bent) to pretend their fields aren't controversial. As if the relation between social science and society had the exact same dynamic as the relation between society and natural science, natural science which was at the very foundations of capitalism and which was entirely controversial when the emerging bourgeoisie were in contest with the aristocracy (or what, do you think aristocrats wouldn't tell you that studying the natural world scientifically was fucking stupid? they did, and it worked, for hundreds of years).

Should probably specified that I said "after neoliberalism was left to reign supreme for four decades." Support for Marxism dropped hard in the 1980s and 1990s with the downfall of SSSR. You need some time before the doctrine bears it´s fruits, which happened in 2008, after which interest in anti-capitalist struggle started to gain speed.

You're confusing liberalism and neoliberalism. Neoliberalism does not seek to erase political economy, only to reframe it.

>and "by itself" would do away with Capital means you're treating the social world the same way the "economics" dudes do, as if it was a natural process divorced from the active participation of its constituents.
Not him but the point would be more that it would be another one of many mounting contradictions, and that while the implementation of it as such would not actually destroy capitalism, the implementation of it as a system would inevitably lead to a revolutionary moment. Inevitably the system can try to perpetuate itself through many means regardless of it's effectiveness, that is without doubt, but capitalism as a system continually creates contradictions by it's very nature and inability to reconcile it's fundamental mode of production with the changing material conditions and evolving worker's consciousness.

>literally how capitalism always has operated in every scenario
do you know what lobbying is?

elaborate
My understanding is that neoliberalism, as examplified by figures like Friedman, Thatcher, Reagan, Sowell, etc. always tries to delegitimize the use of public power to solve social problems.

>Fredric Jameson or Mark Fisher
Do you honestly think Mark Fisher of Fredric Jameson (FREDRIC FUCKING JAMESON) would even EXIST if it wasn't for Marx, and the line of scientific development pioneered by him?

The "argument" isn't even an argument at all, i.e it doesn't absolve you of the responsibility of demonstrating exactly how and where Marx fails in "explanatory power". Aristotle is only notable today because he was rediscovered by Muslims. Plato only became prominent again thousands of years later, and even in antiquity was relegated to second-fiddle for almost a millennium before Plotinus. It doesn't fucking matter what sort of random processes make thinkers "notable", if anything it just shows that evaluating the merit of their thought on the basis of notability can never be anything other than apologia for the current mainstream.

The same could be said for a lot of fields, but you don't see astronomy students learning Copernicus' system before moving on to Kepler.

>This author contributing nothing to the field of economy, because he was writing articles about the system, not how to make cash as a capitalist
I know sowell isn´t the smartest person on the planet, but please don´t tell me he´s that dumb.

Not the same guy but...
I mean you could say it a process like this
propagandize against public options -> deregulate -> claim they're inefficient and not as good as the free market -> repeat. This is at least what I got from my observations.

desu it would be fucking hilarious if true though.

Attached: marxx.jpg (1192x804, 547K)

I'm glad we're on the same page then. The only thing is that current day capital seems to do pretty well as far as recovering from crashes. Also, I don't know that Marxist economics is any better than other methods at predicting crashes. Many people who subscribe to other schools of thought consistently due well at hedging against crashes.

The fact that capitalism is constituted by contradictions does not make "revolutionary moments" inevitable, that's my whole point. There was nothing inevitable about the revolutions of 1848, there was nothing inevitable about social-democracy, or the Russian revolution, etc. there is only the conscious action of revolutionaries. Without active participation, the antagonisms created by capitalism become articulated in a myriad other ways, there is nothing "inherent" in the workers that spontaneously drives them towards revolution. That was precisely what the notion of false consciousness ("the ruling ideas of each epoch..."), that capitalism doesn't automatically create revolutionaries, if anything the opposite is true i.e that, if left to their own automatic impulses, workers spontaneously become reactionaries in chasing the very spontaneous ideologies of capital that form around the antagonism (anti-semitism, anti-immigration, etc).

>mfw communists shreek about how everything is neoliberalism
>mfw LTV gets btfo but commies still won't shut the fuck up about exploitation

Sowell is literally a black Ben Shapiro that didn't achieve the popularity of Ben Shapiro merely because YouTube wasn't a thing yet.

All theories of value are bullshit, marginalism included.

"Inevitable" less in the sense of historically deterministic, but in that the conditions will lend itself towards the creation of said individuals who will advocate for and push towards revolution. Poor phrasing on my part.

>Communism has never been tried

Attached: marx_terror_quote.jpg (250x332, 26K)

And do you think philosophy students are dumped into the Science of Logic on the first day of undergraduate? That's not the fucking point, and yes scientists (the ones with more interest in state of the art research) do in fact constantly revisit primary sources. Hell, I mean, even if you don't literally read Euclides (which people actually did, until like 250 years ago!) nobody would tell you Euclides isn't "notable" in mathematics, in the same way that we are told Marx isn't "notable" (the connotation being that he was a random crank that, by pure chance, the dudes who got into power in Russia took seriously and therefore doomed the whole world to have to take seriously as well). Honestly if you don't see how ridiculous this sounds, you're beyond help.

The delegitimization itself is a reframing of political power. Also worth mentioning is the fact that neoliberalism doesn't actually care for free markets. It itself is the "crony capitalism" that its ideologues constantly complain about.

>mfw LTV is the only way we've been able to successfully predict economic problems
>mfw STV has no prediction power so it doesnt even fit the definition of "theory"
>mfw only autistic burgers unironically believe in muh subjectivity and most of the rest of the world doesn't.
Why is it only Americans that believe in this autism?
>Mfw theories allow for predictions
They're not entirely useless you know.

Attached: f0a9c7fa041e72d327f9d8eea94d92aa82bc241a8a1a3edfe830d0025e74fd0e.jpg (250x250, 25K)

literally no one on this entire fucking planet has ever said that Communism hasn't been tried, dumbass. The thesis is that communism has been attempted many times in many forms, through many schools of thought, but was never able to fullfill the transitional stage of the state and become a moneyless post-scarcity society as it set out to be, for a load of different reasons. And that Marx quote is correct and based.

Attached: lenin_1.jpg (600x850, 84K)

Screw his effect on "professional economics," every economy in the world, including all the major ones, and every social and governmental system, has been profoundly shaped and changed by Marx. Just because the 40-year peak of marxist/communist regimes (1949-89) is past doesn't change that. The modern world looks the way it does in large part due to his influence, direct, indirect, bastardized, etc. In economic terms, communism has failed catastrophically, sure: but that's only half the story. The rise of unions, modern ideas about social welfare and what role government plays in society all bears his mark. His materialist theory of history has, in an attenuated form, become part of our understanding of the forces that determine the direction of human society. The way we think is changed because of Marx: we all know now that the evolution of ideas, religions, and political institutions is not independent of the tools we use to satisfy our needs, nor of the economic structures we organize around those tools, and the financial interests they create. That wasn't so self-evident before Marx, by a long shot, not to mention the work his political disciples have done breaking the political power of organized churches.

Well that's if you take the broadest possible definition of "politics". When I wrote I means specifically politics as the organized application of collective power, which doesn't include the "battle of ideas" bullcrap.

It has, but it has never been achieved. Now fuck off, mutt, and read a book.

absolutely this, there are few philosophers to point to who have had such a tangible, direct and striking effect on every aspect of society as Karl Marx. Those who disagree should be tucked into bed.

Attached: mao_1.png (249x312, 86K)

>for a load of different reasons

The reason is very simple. People generally don't give up power voluntarily once they've acquired it.

Bit off topic, but did anyone tried to study "negative Marxism?" Meaning capitalistic states using Marxist theory to identify faults of capitalism and cope with them in order to preserve the system? For example if there are traces of it in Keynesianism.

>the elites' reaction when neoliberals were better Leninists than the left ever was
stay mad tankie LARPers

Attached: 1564214851869.png (328x298, 78K)

>there are few philosophers
*none, unless you want to call Jesus and Muhamad philosophers.

The conditions of RIGHT NOW are already in the favour of revolutionaries, if only revolutionaries would get their head out of their ass! The danger in thinking of external "changes in conditions" as being a boon, or even a pre-requisite, for the development of revolutionary consciousness, is that this gets the equation backwards: it is the development of revolutionary consciousness that allows the class struggle to re-ignite in a revolutionary direction. There is no automatic development of capitalism that will intensify class struggle, this just does not happen. If it seemed like class struggle was automatic in the 19th century (ie workers in factories naturally realized their community against the "enemy" of capital) this is merely an illusion generated by an incomplete understanding of history. You have to keep in mind that the 19th century as a period of massive upheaval ushered in by revolutionary bourgeois elements, many of which (including Marx) took the revolutionary element to its logical conclusion and THESE people were what formed the basis of the emerging communist movement, of workers seeing each other as belonging to a class rather than merely individuals, or national citizens. The biggest workers' movement of that time, german social-democracy, was absolutely grounded in this sort of understanding facilitated by "intellectuals" and "marxists", and if it failed, its failure is owed to an incomplete understanding of conditions and a weakening of revolutionary spirit on the part of the political leadership.

Having any sort of hope that things like UBI will "clear the field" and make it easier to pursue revolutionary politics is problematic, because it obfuscates the very origin and basis of revolutionary politics. We could have revolutionary politics right now! Nothing is stopping us, aside from our own failures! There is no "conditions" external to us that preclude the development of revolutionary politics! And the same complacent garbage will be true in the times of UBI neo-feudalism if "revolutionaries" don't start taking this seriously.

This might interest you

gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=7184A2953DD48B3EB7821C8D9E6AE712

I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. You're wilfully ignoring systemic foreign intervention in every attempted communist project.

im not a tankie, I think Stalin pushed global communism into the wrong direction and it failed to recover for the remainder of the Cold War

>the free market figures out a price.
People in market economy negotiate prices for things, often poorly and often against ethical conduct.
Though I am probably just a tinfoil...

nigger you can talk a lot of shit but the simple fact is that middle classes end up being reactionaries
That is DOUBLY true for people who've been lifted up from the proletariat.
Italy, Germany, Israel, Spain, China we even see this in real-time right now in Brazil. The fascist-est of them all are always the moderately-comfortable middle class kids whose parents were poor

I meant more or less the same definition of politics as you did. I just mean that neoliberalism makes use of collective power, bargaining, etc in ways outside of the orthodox connotation. The interests of groups of shareholders, the way production of certain military hardware acquisitions is split up over so many states as to become impractical because of collective interest, etc.

What exactly are you referring to by "middle classes"? Workers who earn well, or petit-bourgeoisie? The latter is obviously reactionary, the very basis of their existence predisposes them to reaction. Workers are only reactionary, wait for it, because self-proclaimed "communists" think they should wait and see and let the "class struggle" play itself out automatically, which only benefits the petit-bourgeoisie ideologies that are what capture the consciousness of workers.

It doesn't HAVE to be this way. It really doesn't, there are no material conditions, nothing external to active political participation, that guarantees the current strength of reaction.

While this is true, I think it discounts why revolutionary thought gets propogated and why many people come to revolutionary ideologies: usually because the existing systems are in moments of great crisis and people's lives are generally worse or there is something that is making the consciousness of the people weigh heavily on events that are transpiring, moments where faith in the status quo is shaken. It's an easy way to begin to conceptualize the issues of society and seek out answers to how to fix such issues which lead people to Marxism and to the adoption of revolutionary tactics. It's why mass-movements like the Yellow Vests were predicated on an event rather than fully spontaneous, or indeed why the Bolsheviks organized around events of the time. Not only is it giving a view of how society is failing, it also provides the chance for leftists to advocate for a feasible alternative that can be achieved by the people if they should only realize the power that they hold as the working class and bring it to bear. So yes, revolutionary action is possible at any time, but the best way to organize them is around moments, and use the framework of existing issues that you explore as a way to provide people with an understanding of the ideology and your plan of action.

>scientific method is based on materialism
[citation needed]

>Workers who earn well, or petit-bourgeoisie?
Both, fuckface
In the real world there is no distinction
Classes as based on relation to the "means of production" are bullshit.
Pretty much every well-earning prole also has a pension fund

All the communist countries that became communist did so with another state backing them.
Starting with germany backing the bolkevish during WWI.
Anyways nobody wants communism and with good reason.
Even if it somehow worked and people got more pay for less hours it wouldnt have been worth all the bloodshed and misery that preceded it.

>communism
>pay

>Classes as based on relation to the "means of production" are bullshit.
Try to live without working for five years smartass. Unless you live in some nordic state, you´ll end up begging on the streets.

Nonsense. A worker might have a pension that permits him to pay rent and feed himself after retiring (already in and of itself an achievement of communist unions), but he has no access to capital aside from the labour he can create, which ceases once he stops working. A petit-bourgeois can rely on his business or property as a form of capital that creates profit without his labour. Therein lies an enormous distinction.

The notion of having a strategy of agitating around events presupposes an already existing revolutionary element, or even better a worker's movement. Events do not have any meaning by themselves, look at the Yellow Vests: they were a rag-tag conglomeration of various elements in French society ranging from slum-dwellers to small business owners, and within "the movement" there existed a myriad contradictory demands, a lot of which were reactionary. If there is no already existing communist movement to articulate the SIGNIFICANCE of the event with regards to the working class, we lose the possibility of fomenting the class independence that is necessary to shed these reactionary elements from such "spontaneous" movements. Of course we have to start from existing issues, but please, actually do start! Articulate existing issues in a way that gets at the core of the contradiction that sustains them, do not simply repeat revolutionary phrases and agitate with meaningless slogans from 50 years ago that mean nothing to anyone! Of course this takes work, and if I had a perfect answer for this I would already be leading the worldwide communist movement, but the point is this hard work has to be done, the task has to be confronted, and so many leftists today retreat into the safety of their "revolutionary ideas" which are not much more than a lifestyle. I guess we might not be as bad today as we were a couple of years ago, but if this is true then it owes itself to nothing more than people thinking the way I'm expounding here, and acting on it.

You can't see a distinction because you don't go beyond surface appearances. My whole point is that the lack of a distinction is not a given, is not something unchangeable, it doesn't have an untouchable cause. It doesn't HAVE to be like that! If you can't see this, then you're probably beyond help.

As long as there is scarcity there will need to be some form of currency.
Whether its labor vouchers or social credits.

I would prefer to criticise marxism from the left not only as unscientific but also as a totalising eurocentric worldview.quantitative economics which as anyone seriously involved on the development sector knows can be a truly effective instrument for social justice. I bet most of the college white dude marxists havent read a page on gender economics and arent aware of the progress that has been made in empowering third world women through microloans. Even the world bank and the imf are making real efforts to incorporate gender and diversity into all aspects of their work, meanwhile the marxists are still fuming about 'identity politics' and providing cover for authoritarian regimes

Why shouldnt retards be allowed to spend their money freely and belle to go place whatever price ppl will buy. Specially with whats shes selling

be more subtle next time and it might work

A value is given to it by the man looking at it. It is purely a matter of preference and ranking different courses of actions. It is a matter of order and at the fundamental level there is no measure of it.
Said preferences are the ultimate given of any theory of economics or even practical philosophy in general. They are empirically determined by the effective choices being made by an individual.
Only after that can you have an empirical predictive model of what someone in particular or men in general will prefer at a future date. Some of these predictions are quite ok statistically, like people preferring lower risks.

>A value is given to it by the man looking at it
this is some peak idealism right here

Let me rephrase your question.
>Why shouldn´t society spend resources to maintain internet whores?
Answer to that question would be, because there are more important issues at hand. Liberalism relies on the assumption that individuals will spend their money well and the state doesn´t need to intervene so obviously camwhores are an example for paternalism.

the whores will soend the money well though.

>A value is given to it by the man looking at it
But why does he value it?

I looked at diamond and I valued it 20€, nice shiny rock but hardly useful more than a car. How come the diamond merchants look at me like a retard when I try to buy diamonds for 20€, why do they price it at several cars?

Attached: bait_2.jpg (483x378, 110K)

They will buy cosmetics, cameras and electronics. They won´t contribute to the society.

being influential =/= being right

the bible is probably the most influential book ever, yet most atheists say it's complete bullshit

good post

Economics is not empirical; it begins in abstraction. It's not a science. It's in the same realm of pseudo-science as modern psychology and psychiatry, which, while pretending to be scientific, assume unfounded universals, i.e. that everyone always acts in their own self-interest, etc.

It survived for millenia and it still forms large portion of our moral foundation. t. atheist

Longevity and impact are very important for judging quality of philosophical work, considering the concept of "right" is much less rigid here than in science.

>Even the world bank and the imf are making real efforts to incorporate gender and diversity into all aspects of their work
how?

>i.e. that everyone always acts in their own self-interest, etc
that is literally true of none of the fields you listed lmao

Indeed, that's the peak.
But the materialists larpers will surely give me the 'true' value contained in the thing in itself (not those pesky rationalist idealists) and deduced from dialectics (not filthy empirical methods).
Just like daddy Hegel deduced the number of planets from the objectivity of the matter of the sun, the same year a new planet was discovered.

As I said, this is inconsequential to economics. Economics studies what happens from these values. Of course some of the actions have an effect (either rationally necessary or only empirically motivated) on these evaluations, and these effects come into economics. but the given state of preference is not of concern.
Take mechanics (analogy are trash but I'll do it anyway) as an example. You have rational a priori laws of kinematics. You have empirical laws of dynamics. From their combinations, you deduce empirical models, and that may give insight into the changes of velocity and angular momentum of a system. Yet you will have internal characteristics or integration invariant in the model, such as the energy or the mass of the particle. you can study their changes, but you can't ask (in general, you can for some given system with ad hoc hypotheses) 'why does this particular system have this particular initial mass'.

no one in philosophy was ever "right", how the fuck would you ever quantify that.

>tfw currently a student of fredric jameson
***literary lifestyle*** bros where we @???

Sowell is a class traitor and a retard and should be shot like all other traitors.

Literally any basic economics textbook will tell you that economics makes that assumption.
staffwww.fullcoll.edu/fchan/Micro/3utility_maximization_model.htm

>Seriously, why would I ever bother looking at historical materialism or the LTV when I can literally just look at the empirical data?
but Marx's LTV generates empirically testable predictions.

if all you want is a shiny rock then you can get one that isn't a diamond for a piece of paper that the ECB has printed the number 20 on

The value of objects are not found exclusively in the individual worth of said objects in abstraction from the material world, but found in relation to them. In reality the use value of objects to individuals is not reflective of the actual societal worth of objects as they are being sold, because of the mechanisms of the existing base of society, in our case capitalism. Value in this sense is created from an array of costs associated in it's production, chiefly the labor that goes into it. And in opposing systems such as socialism, things with priceless use value such as food and water were subsidized to the point of being virtually free.
Marxism clearly makes the point that people don't always act in their self-interest, and modern economics are not based on the proceedings of the actual economy but an idealized model of the economy, and is thus not an actual analysis of the economy but rather a statement of how the economy should be that people try to tweak the existing economy into, so basically a model of what capitalism should be.

Because there are more than two participants in the market.

so they literally aren't derived off of perceived value by individuals, lmao

Then why does one shiny rock cost so fricking much, while another one is cheap?
There are more than two participants in the car market too, but shiny rocks still have higher price.

because value is subjective

>because value is subjective
If it was subjective, why can´t I buy it for 20? I am the subject here.

the price is also subjective and the people with the diamonds think that they can get more than 20 euros for them

air has more utility than gemstones so this hypothesis is obviously wrong

>In reality the use value of objects to individuals is not reflective of the actual societal worth of objects as they are being sold, because of the mechanisms of the existing base of society, in our case capitalism.
Selling an object is one possible use of it, which is taken into the evaluation of an object. In fact in any society with advanced division of labor, this is the first use of the overwhelming majority of objects which are rarely used in any other way by their initial proprietors.
>Value in this sense is created from an array of costs associated in it's production
Value is not created by the physical processes in the production. It is 'created', if we insist on the word, when someone wants the object. Of course the initial proprietor can give the value long before a buyer comes, because the expected transaction is the use value of the object to him.
>subsidized to the point of being virtually free.
Subsidized things are not free. Something that is abundant in such a way there can be no conflict in its uses does not need to be subsidized.
By 'free' you mean considerable investment of scarce resources were directed towards them. It is an arbitration between possible uses of things, but it doesn't magically make things costless.

>why can´t I buy it for 20? I am the subject here.
Because some Jew uses his subjectivity to not sell it for below six gorillons shekels.
There are always (at least) two subjects in a transaction.

Not the utility at the margin, it doesn't.
You seem to give a pseudo-objective sense to 'utility', which is perhaps not what user had in mind.

Then screw those greedy yids, I´ll go to another store with better subjects..This other store has a lot of 0 in the price as well. Wait. How come all of them sell it at these ridicolous prices?

i don't know what you guys are arguing about. Marx agrees market prices are subjectively determined. that's not what's in question

This shit always happens. People are incredibly confused about what Marx or the classical economists in general had to say about value, and what the basis of modern orthodox economics even is by comparison.

Economics is an ideology.

>external factors

Ah yes, the boogeyman every marxist uses to excuse communist regimes committing atrocities on their own people. Foreign powers are allegedly behind the cause of bloody class warfare, widespread famines through unscientific agricultural practices, and violent suppression of any real or perceived opposition.

Attached: article-2481378-191965A100000578-174_964x562.jpg (964x562, 243K)

So you're saying there wasn't a coerced and developed attempt to categorically and systematically hinder nascent communist movements wherever they sprung up, rig elections to crush their rise (Italy 1948), overthrow their Leaders (Chile), invade their shores (Bay of Pigs) and support death squads against them (Taliban, South Vietnam)? You're aware American troops literally fought Bolsheviks on Russian soil during the civil war, right?

Attached: implying_6.jpg (151x160, 6K)

do Marxists not seek to replace this process with something more (((objective)))?

no. Marx's LTV isn't prescriptive.

then why is it deemed to be of any use for making predictions about a market which shits on his LTV?

GUYS I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL IM IN HELL

Attached: Head-VI.jpg (828x1017, 293K)

>What is the history of imperialist powers and almost the entirety of latin america
I don't mean to be condescending, but you know this doesn't mean it's exclusive to only communist regimes, right?
You don't even need to be full communist to get the ire of the U.S., just moderately socdem with anti-imperialist sentiment. It's purely a matter interest. The policies that they promote don't hide there intentions. There isn't any need for a large conspiracy.

Attached: 7f22e9e1e3672c6aa1f61d632f0c279c-imagejpeg.jpg (1200x695, 110K)

i don't know what you're asking

>It is 'created', if we insist on the word, when someone wants the object
t incorrect gang, overproduction is constantly done so as to placate market forces
>Subsidized things are not free
ergo virtually free

what use is a theory of value which is neither descriptive nor prescriptive? why do Marxists believe in this stuff? it's actually worse than voodoo

Great painting, I was lucky to see it in the Getty in 2016, Bacon really is one of the goats.

it is descriptive. i thought that was implied when i said it wasn't prescriptive.

Labor vouchers are "no more money than a theatre ticket is" (Marx). Even if you extend your definition of "pay" to encompass the share of the social product falling to an individual, you won't be able to say whether it's "more pay" or "less pay" than in capitalism, since in communism articles are no longer assigned value.

>But the materialists larpers will surely give me the 'true' value contained in the thing in itself
Nope, it's not in the thing in itself. It's only social (Marx):
>We may twist and turn a single commodity as we wish; it remains impossible to grasp it as a thing possessing value. However, let us remember that commodities possess an objective character as values only in so far as they are all expressions of an ideal social substance, human labour, that their objective character as values is therefore purely social.

You don't need prescriptive statements about something to be able to explain it. You only need descriptive ones.

it doesn't describe anything which exists, so what use is it? Marx is wrong

>it doesn't describe anything which exists, so what use is it? Marx is wrong
descriptive isn't synonymous with accurate. there are accurate and inaccurate descriptive theories. regardless, you haven't demonstrated why it's inaccurate, i don't think

Of course classical economists won't agree with Marx, because Marx is in favor of the abolition of Capital. They don't want to loose the job, their purpose in society. Their little university chair. (BTW Marx never had a fucking chair. Never wanted to).
A classical economist in favor of Marx would be like a vegan butcher.

>rent-seeking isn't literally what Marxists do for political favor
>a freer market isn't more capitalist

Capital = Constant capital + Variable capital + Profit.

The ideology goes that "communist regimes" did it "themselves", whereas famines caused by industrialization on western capitalist terms were just "the natural goings of the economy and society". They are horrified at the man-made famines of USSR industrialization, but shrug at the purportedly uncaused and unintended collaterals of primitive accumulation.

From what i understand (still haven't read Critique of the Gotha program). Labor vouchers aren't supposed to circulate. It's not a currency if it doesn't circulate.

>Tripfag
>Spouts nonsense
Checks out.

>class interest exists and can be subverted

>complete non sequitur in place of argument
typical Marxist

if it purports to describe real world activity then it is empirically wrong (as measured by price) and his predictions are thereby meaningless
if it exists only in his metaphysical fantasies then at some point it is going to have to be prescriptive because the only people who try and bring these fantasies into being are Marxists

>>t incorrect gang, overproduction is constantly done so as to placate market forces
And constant overproduction would be a terrible choice. Contrary to marxoid conceptions, capitalists (and in fact everyone) are able to evaluate the future. They take into account the possibilities of placating the market in the future into their calculations, so 'over'production becomes a viable strategy because they consider the expected values given by future consumers in such a scenario, which is the industrialist own expected future use value.

>if it purports to describe real world activity then it is empirically wrong (as measured by price)
it's not a theory of market prices so i don't know what you mean.
>and his predictions are thereby meaningless
which predictions and why?

If you want an argument, you have to communicate in way other people can understand. Or perhaps having enough intelligence to understand that there is a contradiction between interests of capitalists and the free market, will do.

the market doesn't care about the value his theory assigns to goods, so it has no predictive power. what use is it?

you're just begging the question

His theory doesn't assign any value to goods. The market does, and it appears as prices.

History is more empirical than economics as far as social sciences are concerned but nice post otherwise

Attached: Value - labor.png (1127x634, 408K)

Well, it's framework of history has always been kind of shit and it was completely annihilated like 50 years ago to the point where Marxist historiography basically disappeared and was mostly replaced by weak apologists of socialism.

His explanation for why oil is not in line with labour theory of value is impossibly stupid and that source is a Google drive? The fuck?

>Ricardo
>impossibly stupid

>Actually linking methodology
>problematic

Are you an american or something?

>And constant overproduction would be a terrible choice
it's literally what we are doing now lmao

Marxism is flawed at its basis.
>How do you reward a more dedicated laborer?
>How do you avoid class segregation if you reward said laborer?
>How do you avoid using oppressive state apparatus to suppress unavoidable class segregation?
>How do you avoid natural hierarchies?
Et cetera

>the fact that most shirts are made by machines makes this calculation even more difficult.
Marx absolutely takes this into account though see Constant Capital is Marx taking machinery into account.

The only part I don't understand about Marx's view of machinery is saying that they don't produce surplus value, and going on to say that labor is the only commodity capable of surplus value.

Attached: sovietfeel.jpg (403x403, 27K)

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

Literally straight from Gotha

>The only part I don't understand about Marx's view of machinery is saying that they don't produce surplus value, and going on to say that labor is the only commodity capable of surplus value.
this is because there's a static amount of value that a machine can transfer to a product. there's the SNLT it takes to reproduce the machine, and the presumable number of products it can produce before breaking down. the capitalist pays for every bit of value the machine transfers to the final product. but labor produces value beyond what the capitalist pays for it (which is to say beyond the wage) - this is surplus value.

If this is true it represents an indictment of modern economics rather than Marx.

>To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal
What

Here´s the whole thing.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

If you look at the post I was replying to, the point of contention was the cause of failure in communism's implementation and the consequences that result from it. I don't see how foreign pressure has any bearing on a regime committing atrocities on its own people or treating them like expendable lab rats for some utopian experiment.

If your moral and ethical values change along with the wind because of "outside pressure", then you don't have them to begin with.

>The ideology goes that "communist regimes" did it "themselves"

Yes, the communist regimes literally did it to themselves. They literally believed in pseudo-science. No one forced them to engage in unproven agricultural methods.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

>1372864
More like "Sowell soils himself".

Attached: 1445982440638b.jpg (527x668, 102K)

>How do you reward a more dedicated laborer?
With a higher income. Workers received different pay for different work in the soviet union and Cuba. Marxism is about trying to get the full value of your labor.
>How do you avoid class segregation if you reward said laborer?
Workers wouldn't invest in capital.
>How do you avoid using oppressive state apparatus to suppress unavoidable class segregation?
You don't, the state is still necessary for class conflict. You can see this clearly in Lenin's writing on socialism.
>How do you avoid natural hierarchies?
You don't, It's unavoidable and Marx says as much. But since their relation to the means of production are no different than anyone else it doesn't constitute as a class difference in the Marxist sense.
>Marx claims that advocating equality along one dimension, such as everyone in a society earning the same amount of money per hour worked, will lead to inequality along other dimensions. Everyone earning an equal amount per hour of work would, for example, lead to those who work more having more money than those who work less.
>If a society decides to instead ensure equality of income by paying all workers the same daily wage then there would still be inequality along other dimensions. For example, workers who don’t have to provide for a family with their wage will have more disposable income than workers with families. Therefore we can never reach full equality but merely move equality and inequality around along different dimensions.
From anarchopac's write up on Marx not being an egalitarian. I don't usually really like him but that piece was good.

Attached: MarxGunLaws.jpg (1200x1200, 204K)

>How do you reward a more dedicated laborer?
In a lower stage you reward them with an extended share of the social product dedicated for consumption. In a higher stage you don't.
>How do you avoid class segregation if you reward said laborer?
No private property, common ownership of the means of production.
>How do you avoid using oppressive state apparatus to suppress unavoidable class segregation?
By removing economic basis of class segregation, that is private property, division of labour, division between town and country.
>How do you avoid natural hierarchies?
Which ones?

If we have two workers doing the same job, one with no children and one with five children, a right to equal pay is defective, since the second worker has to share the same income with his five children, while the first doesn't. In order to fix that defect, the right to equal pay would have to become the right to unequal pay.

scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
>The gov't is controlled by big business.
And you in turn played yourself double.

Oh okay thanks user that clears it up a bit.

>No one forced them to engage in unproven agricultural methods.
Yarovizacya was proven to work, though. It predated Lysenko.

>history
>a social science

Attached: 5394EC27-CB29-47BC-A6DF-9853D4E2A213.jpg (359x377, 35K)

>Marxism is about trying to get the full value of your labor.
Marx destroyed Lassalean retards who wanted workers to get "undiminished proceeds of labour" in the Critique of the Gotha Programme.

>How do you reward a more dedicated laborer?
More work if they don't like you or promotion/better pay if they like you.

>How do you avoid class segregation if you reward said laborer?
Impossible to avoid as you always need people to run things. What you'll get is "more people being equal" and not "everyone being equal".

>How do you avoid using oppressive state apparatus to suppress unavoidable class segregation?
You would ask the population to do it for you so you don't have to stain your own hands with blood while having plausible deniability.

>How do you avoid natural hierarchies?
You just kill people that managed to rise up to the middle of the pyramid. You don't want them anywhere near the top, where you and your government stands.

>In a higher stage you don't
Why?

And of course, strictly speaking, labour has no value, because it forms the substance of value. "1 hour of abstract labour has the value of 1 hour of abstract labour" is not a statement of value of labour but a tautology. What has value is labour-power, and workers already tend to get it in full, except of course for when stuff like wage theft happens.

Because in a higher stage consumption is free for all.

And what is this higher stage?

>no private property
How do I live without a house?

It's a stage of communism at which the social and productive development allows for free consumption.

marxism destroyed

Houses will remain, they just won't have the social character of property.

How is that even possible?

What? What if a random thug enters my house because it has "no social character of property"? What is this Stirnerian thing?

It's possible once the development of production can keep up with development of needs, and once the generations who are alive don't remember the times of private property anymore so they don't behave like hoarding animals.

You call the police.

But police is an oppressive apparatus of power. How do I call something that doesn't exist anymore?

>there are people who unironically believe this is the future

Attached: c0a974c98c930aa2ad8f99255d457a155b9161c5.jpg (340x565, 61K)

Calling them people is too kind

No, the oppressive/political function of the state (and its organs) goes away along with its class character. The remaining functions are purely administrative.
There's no reason that a social organ dedicated to dealing with dangerous mentally ill people and libertarians shouldn't be formed, regardless of whether it's called police or not.

Not wrong. He's barely existent in positive circles, but he's all other everything when it comes to normative economics with any real backbone.

first you have to get past this stage

Attached: tyranny.png (1675x678, 161K)

Anarcho-communism is about abolition of private property of the means of production.
You can keep your house and your toothbrush. That's personal

In anarcho-communism, thugs won't even exist. If everyone needs are covered, and exchange value don't exist anymore, theft doesn't make sense anymore.
Perhaps a sex offender would try to enter your house. But this has nothing to do (directly at least) with modes of production.

Well, obviously. Marx defines the value of a commodity to be the labor time embodied in it and mainstream economics defines value to be price. You can't do anything with the former definition outside of the most trivial situations.

But I can use my house as means of production. Or my land.
>Perhaps a sex offender would try to enter your house
Perhaps, but pure communism isn't supposed to have a police force, for it's an oppressive element. Here arises another question: how do you deal with sexual market? Are women also shared means of production now?

>In anarcho-communism, thugs won't even exist. If everyone needs are covered, and exchange value don't exist anymore, theft doesn't make sense anymore.

What if someone is doing it because they enjoy it?

rich roasties shop-lift all the time for no reason

Seems like Marx's standard ass-covering a la fictitious capital.

Agree. You call your neighbors, or the voluntary citizens elected or randomly chosen to keep social harmony.

Yes, you have to get past the stage where the remnants of class society are still there to get to the stage where they no longer are there. Good observation.

This retarded distinction comes from a misreading of Marx. Just don't listen to people who call themselves anarcho-anything. They have no idea what they're talking about.

>but pure communism isn't supposed to have a police force, for it's an oppressive element
No, it's only oppressive if it serves to preserve the oppressive class society.

>how do you deal with sexual market? Are women also shared means of production now?
It's not a market, and it can only appear as a market for people who live in a fetishistic capitalist society. Women are people, not means of production.

1. Don't read Marx (b-but I've read the Manifesto!!!!!).
2. Come up with this AMAZING TAKEDOWN of Marx you can't wait to share with your friends on Reddit.
3. Share it on Yea Forums for some reason (????).
4. It turns out it doesn't work because Marx's theory has more elements to it than you thought.
5. Call the elements that weren't supposed to be there "ass-covering".
6. ???
7. Profit.
classic

Your analogy is backwards. A better analogy would be something like:
>Despite the massive eschatological feat that Arius's writings represent, the Arian contribution to Nicene Christianity can be readily summarized as virtually zero.
If you're gonna talk shit, try not to be retarded.

Btw. if you want more "gotcha" quotes then Marx talks about using forcible means against other classes in "Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy" (I believe the original word he used was closer to "violent"). And there's also this of course:
>Far from opposing the so-called excesses – instances of popular vengeance against hated individuals or against public buildings with which hateful memories are associated – the workers’ party must not only tolerate these actions but must even give them direction.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

>You call your neighbors
What if your neighbors don't want to take part?

>voluntary citizens elected
There's just going be more Zimmerman incidents

>randomly chosen to keep social harmony
Sounds like a draft

>Read post attacking Marxist concept as arbitrary per his concept of value
>Accuse poster of not reading Marx for the thousandth time
>Use 2006 meme format
>Share with /leftypol/ refugees in discord server
>???
>Profit

Anything but /leftypol/. Please don't accuse me of having anything to do with that.

any neighbors who don't want to take part have already been killed

>communism isn't supposed to have a police force, for it's an oppressive element. Here arises another question: how do you deal with sexual market?
How do the Huterrites manage this? They don't have police at all. Probably like how common sense dictates it. The women scream, mens are alerted, they rush toward the screams, the sex offender is dealt with.
About sexual market, it only exist since the neolitic revolution. Prostitution is a sad thing anyway.

Do you steal water? Sand? Air? If you have 30 apples for the week, and you know that nobody would want apples, because they already have theirs, why would you steal apples?

>why aren't these people conforming to my theory, the people must be wrong

lel

>why would you steal apples?

So I have extra ones I can throw at nerds like you

>Women are people, not means of production
And men still want to fuck. That doesn't answer my question at all.

>So I have extra ones I can throw at nerds like you
Redistribution, I see.

Maybe try getting a haircut or something.

Probably like how common sense dictates it. The women scream, mens are alerted, they rush toward the screams, the sex offender is dealt with.

This concept is Old Testament,
gotquestions.org/amp/Bible-rape.html

not common sense. The “common decency “ you form is 2000 years of Christ’s work already.

>(b-but I've read the Manifesto!!!!!).
To give some idea to the idiots doing this, the Communist Manifesto was more about him trying to unite the workers' unions and organizations under one umbrella than putting forward his (and Engels') ideas and theories and what not. It's not meant to be all that cohesive.

Also, Marx pretty much means "Marx and Engels".

Practically nobody in any of these threads does this anymore. Before you try to finagle evidence from all the normative discussion going on, consider that half the time it is the "Marxists" steering the discussion towards praxis. Find a new "gotcha."

Well the main problem is that it's fucking 30 pages.
The concept of "faux frais" or incidental expenses appears half a dozen times of Capital, and it stands out to attention since it's not immediately recognizable to most of the readers. In other words, it's hard not to remember it if one has read Capital attentively. And if one hasn't then one just shouldn't speak about Marx. I know we're on a board dedicated to talking about authors you haven't read but that doesn't mean I can't complain about it.

>consider that half the time it is the "Marxists" steering the discussion towards praxis
You've missed the point. To simplify it, you can pretty much not count the Communist Manifesto as Marx and just ignore it. It's not a question of praxis.

>Well the main problem is that it's fucking 30 pages.
Also true. It's pretty much a pamphlet.

The point I was trying To make was that accusing your opponents of solely appealing to the manifesto is disingenuous, given how many iterations of what is essentially the same thread we've had.

>Yes, the communist regimes literally did it to themselves
That was not the point, I said "did it themselves". People are horrified at what happened under collectivization because they see it as an authoritarian intrusion on the natural life of peasants, but by the same standard they dismiss the apparently "natural" non-intrusions into the life of pre-modern peasants when these same processes transpired in the development of capitalism, not to mention when imperial powers felt the need to modernize colonies. The same horrors happened, if not even with bigger numbers in total, but people don't put it on the same ballpark because they don't even conceptualize it as something anyone "did", whereas they do with the USSR.

As for Lysenkoism, this was not the cause of the big famine at the beginning of collectivization. Lysenko was promoted precisely AFTER said famine, on the promise that his new science would improve agriculture. It failed, but didn't itself really cause any massive catastrophes on the level of the 32-33 famine. It just made the process terribly inefficient and painful. At any rate, the "horrors" that are attributed to the USSR usually aren't the famines themselves, but the forceful collectivization itself and all the repression and terror it entailed.

lmao at all these Yea Forums Marxoids unable to defend LTV, the linchpin of their entire theory, frantically changing the subject instead

Attached: 7hgLQHJ.png (215x215, 38K)

Massive non-sequitur. It's something that keeps happening, valid thing to point out that people keep doing it.

Attached: d5e.jpg (271x294, 28K)

>name 1 war crime the USA committed.
I'm still waiting

If Marx himself had to make another version of communism in order to unite workers what makes you think his intended version would even work? This sounds awfully like what modern politicians do on a regular basis.

As if marxism was just a "rival economic theory" on the same playing field as mainstream economics. Marxism is the actual investigation, the break and critique of ideologically mystified economics. The comparison between feudal geocentrism and the emerging scientific astronomy is perfectly clear.

I'm not arguing with you, your concept of what Marx and others involved in workers' organizations and rights and communism and related ideas etc etc is too uninformed and immature, you're nowhere near a stage where you're making decent somewhat informed arguments. I don't feel like trying to educate you, so we are at an impasse.

you should live without a house if you compare personal to private property

Attached: 0963_-_vau6Xw1.png (326x326, 171K)

read Killing Hope

>how do you deal with the sexual market?

>As the Commissar for Social Welfare, Kollontai tried to create the conditions for this new sexual harmony. Efforts were made to combat prostitution and to increase the state provision of child-care, although little progress could be made in either field during the civil war. Unfortunately, some local commissariats failed to understand the import of Kollontai's work. In Saratov, for example, the provincial welfare department issued a 'Decree on the Nationalization of Women': it abolished marriage and gave men the right to release their sexual urges at licensed brothels. Kollontai's subordinates set up a 'Bureau of Free Love' in Vladimir and issued a proclamation requiring all the unmarried women between the ages of eighteen and fifty to register with it for the selection of their sexual mates. The proclamation declared all women over eighteen to be 'state property' and gave men the right to choose a registered woman, even without her consent, for breeding 'in the interests of the state'.

wtf, I love communism now

According to real science, and against a small handful of Marxian cranks who claim a conspiracy theory to suppress them and humanities ideologues who can't into basic math, the LTV is in fact wholly discredited, and along with it the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, meaning there'll be no collapse of capitalism.

>real science
>basic math
>the LTV is in fact wholly discredited, and along with it the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, meaning there'll be no collapse of capitalism

Attached: cringe.jpg (1078x775, 93K)

Just going to leave this here
The LTV gets DESTROYED in this debate.

youtu.be/6oQ02sTO6PM

Attached: flat,800x800,075,f.u1.jpg (800x726, 85K)

Ah yes, the typical cop-out response used by Marxists who fail to come up with counterarguments so they resort to adhoms because they know they are never able to reconcile Marx's contradictory positions without doing extreme mental gymnastics.

>conspiracy theory

Attached: ruling class is the ruling class.jpg (300x225, 17K)

What's the dividing line between personal and private property?

It's not an adhom to simply end the argument duder.

The social relations of production

Whatever, you know what you've said. I'm not going repeat it. You're just the typical passive aggressive Marxist who just spews ideas from books verbatim.

Attached: jerk off.gif (186x266, 373K)

I honestly doubt you know what the "LTV" (something Marx never even alludes to) is, much like most other mainstream economists who seem to reduce it to a single proposition claiming to explain, by itself, the price of all objects.

As for the TRPF, even leaving aside the controversial nature of its empirical status (hint: it's not as "settled" as you'd like), the notion that Marxism somehow rests on this result (because it is a result, not a starting hypothesis) is laughable and precisely the sort of half-assed understanding an economist who only ever looks at summaries of Capital as if it were an economic textbook without ever suspecting that there is a completely alien (to him) theoretical edifice behind it. Even if the TRPF was found not to obtain, this would mean jackshit for Marxism, because Marxism doesn't rest on empirical propositions - it is the very groundwork that allows for the investigation and derivation of such propositions themselves.

Yet there are many Marxists that are still employees of the bourgeois state in its universities, something like a fifth of social scientists in USA. They aren't systemically suppressed, they have simply chosen to produce reams of flowery word salad instead of the hard work of fixing their economic theory.

Their goal isn't to defend anything. They just want to "stir the pot" for attention and to get people to convert to communism.

The Mai Lai massacre.
Even the military admits to that one.

Attached: My_Lai_massacre.jpg (714x486, 292K)

Dude, nobody says Marxism is systemically suppressed. Even if there were in fact instances where this happened, it's not the point. Marxism doesn't need to be "suppressed" to become fringe in the context of mainstream economics academia, it is incompatible with it TO BEGIN WITH.

You would see what attempts at suppression look like if a worker's movement arises again, with us "cranks" at the forefront. Funnily enough, whatever theory encapsulates it would probably be unrecognizable to you as marxism, such is the nature of the science.

>TRPF isn't all that important
"the most important law of political economy" -Grundrisse
"the mystery around which the whole of political economy since Adam Smith revolves" -Capital III
>it's an analytical framework
Sure, but aside from what Marx got wrong himself by applying it, see also: pauperization as capital actually lifts billions from poverty, there seems to be little else there besides trivial observations that other socialists were already saying. Perhaps you could show me some actually correct results?

>The Mai Lai massacre.
Those were caused by rogue soldiers. Compare this to the mass executions of people based on class and unfounded accusations.

>Even the military admits to that one
Yes, when did any leftist regime admitted to committing atrocities?

>Moving the goal post his hard
You said name one, user.
I've done my job

Attached: honk stirner.png (753x800, 518K)

Then why has there been no further economic investigation? It seems that every major Marxist who has contributed to the theory since the 1920s has done so either in Sociology or the Humanities. I refuse to accept that regurgitations by Harvey, Kliman, or the one Japanese guy count as novel contributions, and Cockshott is self-evidently a complete joke.

How is it moving the goal post when it's not even a valid example to begin with?

It's a war crime by any metric that actually matters?

Attached: 48b81261ab7e2fd058375030f682f8454170ab2df00a0e590d70a939113696ac.jpg (514x536, 175K)

Marx by political economy means the field of study, which he is critiquing. Not to say Marx didn't think the TRPF existed, but he derives it as a result from his system that build off a critique from political economy. So to say that TRPF is the secret key of political economy seems perfectly clear, and it doesn't imply it is somehow the secret key to capitalism or history or whatever. So yes, in the broad picture of marxism, it actually is not that pivotal.

What do you mean pauperization? Do you think Marx didn't see how Capital "lifted people from poverty"? The point of exploitation and alienation is not that they keep getting poorer, it's of a social (spiritual) nature. Of course in third world countries where to a large extent pre-capitalist formations endured, the introduction of Capital signifies a massive upsurge in standards of living. However, for example in China and Brazil, you'd be hard pressed to explain the accompanying upsurge in militancy and worker unrest if "being lifted from poverty" was the full story. So in a sense you already have a "correct result" right here. As for "correct results" in general, I'm not gonna bother with you on this point because nothing I could ever give you would satisfy you. I'm not making a case on the level of individual empirical predictions, even though you could look them up and see they exist.

See above, these things exist. You say everything is shit anyways, but on what basis? On what basis is, say, Anwar Shaikh a joke? The irony here is that because this is all ignored by the mainstream, there aren't actually any rigorous attempts at criticism or even cursory evaluation of the empirical figures they produce. The same thing happens to "heterodox" economists in general, including Sraffians and even people like the Austrians.

There's a difference a war crime committed by rogue soldiers versus a war crime sanctioned by the state itself.

You keep vacillating between there being a conspiracy to keep Marxists out of mainstream economics and there being an impossibility to enter the mainstream due to material conditions. I'd argue that Shaikh has a far greater impact in fields outside of economics. Clearly there is room for Marxists in the academy, and yet economic consensus has continued to eschew Marxism. I cannot be faulted for concluding that this is due to Marx's writings being untenable for any sort of empirical economic analysis. Sraffa had a significant impact on the London School of Economics, so your point about heterodoxy being shunned merely for being heterodox doesn't really stand.

lmao Whatever, I got you to admit it's a war crime, you little weasel.

Attached: 1526318948718.jpg (1338x1078, 369K)

Also, Shaikh didn't add to the theory so much as he merely applied pre-existing theory to contemporary analysis.

Examples would satisfy me, I'm actually very sympathetic to anticapitalism, I just find Marxism to be on the whole a cult of autism and Marxists themselves to be slippery and disingenuous. This whole "it's just a disinterested scientific critique" talking point I find dishonest, as if Marxists aren't overwhelmingly communists and as if the whole point wasn't the (inevitable?? - your various sects can't agree on this much even though it's supposed to be a rigorous Science) emergence of communism.

I didn't say it's shunned or that there is a conspiracy, I said it's ignored. Ignored means mainstream economists don't ever encounter it or feel the need to study it to pursue their careers, and in turn their output reflects what they studied and they then evaluate new economists by the standard of what is studied and so on and so forth. Maybe in your head this counts as "material conditions", in which case yes, I only ever said the material conditions part.

And you're delusional if you think there's any more room for Marxism in political science, or analytical sociology departments compared with economics. The only place with somewhat of a "room" for Marxism in mainstream academia is on history departments, and even then they don't really work as marxists, they use "marxian approaches" that are subordinate to the wider goals of their broadly empiricist research paradigm. You're tacitly counting "continental" or European philosophy departments, where critical theory lurks, in what I'm referring to as mainstream academia. But these places in academia have a sliver of the cultural legitimacy that is granted to the technocrat-friendly fields, and are constantly under threat of fund cuts, closing down, etc.

>This whole "it's just a disinterested scientific critique" talking point I find dishonest
Your problem might be that you have been encountering idiotic self-proclaimed marxists that don't really understand anything about it. Marxism cannot exist without the ideological substrate of Communism, and as such is the furthest from any notion of "impassionately understanding society" you could think of. The basic point of marxism on the other hand is that there is no such thing as being outside partisanship. We only feel like bourgeois research is outside any ideological substrate because it is legitimized by the existing order, which necessarily has to make pretenses to its own universality.

At any rate, the point about the inevitability of communism is two-fold: first of all, as Marx said, communism is a real movement i.e the politicized workers' movement taken to its utmost conclusion. It's not a theory, or a cool idea or a position in a debate. So communism is bound up with the contradictions of capitalism in that sense. And the inevitability here means, not as Popper thought, that "the overthrow is imminent" but that as long as capitalism exists, no matter if it lasts 1000 years, communism will be its shadow. Of course it's not "inevitable" that a worker's revolution succeeds, we saw it in Germany and Hungary, that's not what he refers to. Marx, a Hegelian, never denied agency, contingency and accidents of history, contrary to popular belief.

>all this pseudistry
Marx is stupid. People dont like being viewed as blank slates, which is the only way communism becomes somewhat viable

>disinterested science is impossible especially in class society
This is a more honest position, but I had to weasel it out of you. I'd just add there was a large current of deterministic Marxists who did feel it was strongly inevitable, though they went somewhat out of vogue when it didn't materialize in Europe. My issue is your sects bitterly disagree on the correct interpretation of Marx, whereas everyone can agree on what Darwin said.

>Talks about pseudistry
>brings up "muh tabula rasa" against a theory that functions on historical materialism.

fucking wew.

Attached: ay lmao.gif (380x500, 1.75M)

>whereas everyone can agree on what Darwin said
Do you not see how this ties back to the impossibility of "neutral" science? You "summarized" my point but left out the part where I mention why is it that bourgeois (natural) science seems so beyond reproach, so "objective", essentially so powerful on the mind (it certainly wouldn't look very impressive to an Ancient Greek aristocrat, if presented in isolation decoupled from the onslaught of practical advancement that went with it). Because the ruling ideas present themselves as universal ideas, as the basic common sense of any thinking mind whatsoever, anything that conforms to the ruling ideological substrate is essentially part of the common reason of everyone. So it is always simpler to agree on what someone like Darwin said. But simpler doesn't mean "easy", because you should know that a fuckton of people DID NOT agree on what Darwin said, in practice, because they took their understanding of his conclusions to imply a plethora of mutually contradictory things. We only nowadays have a "simple" picture of Darwinism, due to not only the modern synthesis, but also the fact that disagreements over interpretation happen in state of the art research. "State of the art" in Marxism IS communism militancy, so when Lenin breaks with the second international that IS a "disagreement" about science. This is honestly hard to put all in one post because it encompasses the whole of marxism, but the heart of the matter is that science cannot be disinterested for the more basic reason that it, and all truth whatsoever, is necessarily practical, in the sense that it is borne out of conceiving the relationship between us and the world (and not 'simply' the world). What this means when it comes to social science is that in conceiving the relationship between the social totality and its constituents scientifically the possibility is opened up of changing it, and this is where marxism lives. That we have so many sects today is testament to the absence of any real advancement on the current practical understanding of the capitalist totality; if that existed, those lifestylist and dead-end sects would die in a breeze in the face of a genuine workers' movement.

You realize that for the longest time you had groups of social Darwinist, right?
Vulgar Marxist aren't any different.

>vulgar
oh and you're an enlightened initiate? this kind of elitism is always funny from the self appointed people's champs.
You're probably right that mainstream economics is skewed to favor the bourgs. I just am deeply disappointed by the Marxian response.

Using the word "vulgar" isn't just me being "elitist", or whatever the fuck you're on about, you goof.
It's technical term that describes a certain strain Marxist that follow economic determinism.

The new Mohammed and his jihad of the retards.

That strain was predominant for a while. It's funny you'll sit in your comfy ivory tower and dismiss all these pioneering comrades with a pejorative.

They fund propaganda and legislative change.

The eradication of native americans.
The genocide of 3 millions Filipinos during the Filipino-American war of 1899-1902.

Why does no one on Yea Forums ever actually learn how to perform calculations in the neoclassical framework instead of just dismissing it as bourgeois and returning to Marxist scholasticism?

Social Darwinism was popular for a while. Now it's not. Same thing. The word "vulgar" is extrapolated from the way Marx used it to describe "vulgar economy". How many ways do I need to explain to you that it's not being used in the pejorative, but technically? Also, I didn't know Yea Forums was an ivory tower. lmao
How come every person who says this seems to treat ignorance as a virtue? Wild, that.

Attached: Anti-Spiral_Suspended_Animation.png (314x177, 77K)

>a class traitor
Pffft
How can you betray someone who believes themselves to be glorified pavement?

Attached: 1485008765383.png (400x358, 244K)

It's not based on materialism, but rationalism and logic.