>>196444720
wrong board but I hope I can explain before the thread dies:
the LTV essentially acts as an anchor point around which the equilibrium of supply and demand meet
in order to turn it into prices, you need to multiply average labor time by T (ratio of organic capital, 1 being the highest, 0 being the lowest)

>>196444720
Marxists will claim the socially useful labor time which determines the value of goods is actually what governs supply, thus what looks like the effect of supply and demand is often (under ordinary conditions, not always) an effect of the labor theory of value
LTV is by Adam Smith and david Riccardo, by the way. Marx changed it a bit, from simply "labor time" to "socially useful labor time". This is a big nail in the coffin for LTV because how, exactly, do you quantify what is "socially useful" labor time to make any predictions at all?
There are other big problems' with Smith and Marx's formulations of LTV but this is the most obvious one. We must remember, though, that Marx was criticizing political economy, he hated that thinks worked this way. He thought LTV explained price formation under capitalism, I think if you were to go back in time and tell him "labor theory of value is false, actually" he would think "oh that's pretty neat" rather than the raging seething many imagine he would display.

>>196445057
socially useful for him is the exact same as average labor time, he uses it interchangebly in the Capital that I have
it has nothing to do with what is desired or wanted
average labor time is for a worker of average skill, average efficiency, etc.
>I think if you were to go back in time and tell him "labor theory of value is false, actually" he would think "oh that's pretty neat" rather than the raging seething many imagine he would display.
no one has disproven the LTV and it correlates quite well to prices in real life (if you actually look at what it is)

>>196444720
I don't think anybody but the most obsessive and intelligent Marxist understands economics. And that's a rare breed.

>>196445057
Something being hard to quantify doesn't make it wrong or mean it was a nail in the coffin
What if i told you using regular supply and demand is also for the most part unquantifiable and nobody has managed to accurately predict prices despite the simplicity of the theory of simply calculating "supply" and "demand"

>>196445467
you should look into the labor theory of value
either way current mainstream economics uses marginal utility as a way to determine value
that is to say
however much an additional unit of whatever you want gives pleasure to you
it's basically diminishing returns

>>196445057
Marxism is a theory about social relations, it doesn't aim or want to predict prices or whatever.
For Marx, capital IS (abstract) labour insofar as capitalism is the society of (abstract) labour.

>>196445621
No i am aware. But marginal utility isnt quantifiable either
All economics do is say "this is the price because this is where the buyer and seller were willing to meet" etc
It doesnt PREDICT anything, it just claims it is the way it is because of this theory
So to say LTV is wrong because its unquantifiable is retarded because the same applies for any other economic theory

Do you really think you could accurately predict the price of, lets say, a banana in Somalia, and I provided you with literally all the information about Somalian economy, all the information from their GDP, to their average income, to their culture, to how many bananas are produced, how many they import, how many are in stock, and I asked you to predict the price. Would you be able to do that, with marginal utility analysis? No, ofcourse not

>>196445711
capital is dead labor, usually accumulated
abstract labor is the thing that is part of a commodity (socially)

>>196445737
>So to say LTV is wrong because its unquantifiable is retarded because the same applies for any other economic theory
no i am a marxist, i do in fact think the LTV is right, it is quantifiable but it's not so simple
>Would you be able to do that, with marginal utility analysis? No, ofcourse not
i would agree, but the austrian school of economics for instance stresses psychology (also a bourgeois science) and uses it as a kind of standard of value

>>196444720
Supply and Demand vs LTV dilemma doesn't exist, these two theories are talking about different things that are not mutually exclusive.

>>196445186
>no one has disproved LTV
it's because it is irrefutable, and this is not a good thing. The labor theory of value has been shielded by Marx and friends in such a way that any criticism of it can be dismissed. The deleterious consequence of this is that the theory loses explainability, predictive power and credibility. Think of it like when String Theorists modify their theory so it doesn't disagree with empirical evidence anymore but also becomes impossible to test and makes no meaningful predictions
>correlates quite well with prices in real life
There are big exceptions to this (Veblen goods) and also I don't think this is causational in the way Marx might have thought, rather, a long labor time results in fewer of the commodity being made and thus lower supply. Since society values money, it is unlikely that commodities that take a long time to produce would remain being produced if you couldn't turn a big profit on them also. You need to pay for the time of the laborer, too, which adds costs to the final product

>>196445812
> but the austrian school of economics for instance stresses psychology
Can you elaborate on this a bit? I’ve listened to a LOT of austrians on youtube whether debates, public speakings, podcasts and I’ve not heard a single one talk about psychology or market psychology. Granted ive not actually read von mises or rothbard so im just wondering what they’re claiming theoretically

>>196445711
>it doesn't aim or want to predict prices

Finally someone who isn't retarded. Even Marxists often don't get this.

>>196445751
Yes, but also in Marx capital is value, specifically it is a self-moving substance that is subject to its own process.

>>196445467
The Lithuanian anon might be right about what marx meant by socially useful labor time but there absolutely is a problem with having something unquantifiable as a paraneter in an equation that aims to give you an exact number, Marx's formulation of the LTV has an equation for the final price of a commodity which takes in account the socially useful labor time.
>nobody has managed to accurately predict prices [with supply and demand]
But you see, Orthodox economists aren't trying to do that, supply and demand is only one of many explanations for changes in the price of a commodity, not an attempt to make claims on what the price is or will be

>>196445711
But this is not about Marxism as a whole, though, this is about the labor theory of value

>>196445876
> it's because it is irrefutable, and this is not a good thing. The labor theory of value has been shielded by Marx and friends in such a way that any criticism of it can be dismissed.
Possibly only because if you criticize LTV in Marx's works you are usually missing the point of the entire critique. Then you're stuck with arguing with retards like Andrew Kilman or whoever.
>>196446194
All equations in Capital are symbolic. They're not supposed to be represented by actual numbers.

>>196446333
Disconnecting "labour theory of value" from Marxism makes it completely irrelevant to Marxism, because the entire conception of value, labour and capital only makes sense from within the Marxism perspective. Or simply, you'd be making a categorical error of assigning different meanings to words.

File: 1687855447706509.jpg (96 KB, 905x942)

96 KB JPG

>>196444720
Basically, it goes like this:
Supply = Mass grave capacity
Demand = Landlords
As demand rises, supply falls and vice versa.

>>196445876
>it's because it is irrefutable, and this is not a good thing.
why does it have to be refutable? and is it, really?
> The deleterious consequence of this is that the theory loses explainability, predictive power and credibility.
if you remember goedel's theorem, from a set of key axioms, building up any logical system will eventually lead to statements that are true but which cannot be proven
it's a popperian thing to want refutability
> so it doesn't disagree with empirical evidence anymore but also becomes impossible to test and makes no meaningful predictions
however, we can somewhat 'test' the LVT but it is difficult to do so, because access to such economic data is very hard to get
> and also I don't think this is causational in the way Marx might have thought, rather, a long labor time results in fewer of the commodity being made and thus lower supply.
the labor theory of value is not so much 'prescriptive' as it is descriptive
with veblen goods i'd have to read more Marx to reply properly, but Marx in the very first pages of Capital says it doesn't matter at all whether the product you want to buy comes from fancy or from some kind of real need
it also seems like veblen goods are not agreed by all that they exist and it seems like a more psychological thing
i would argue that it is not the actual price that makes a specific brand of watch attractive, but the brand itself
in my economics course we discussed monopolies on specific brands, that is to say, apple has a monopoly on the iPhone brand, it's the very same thing here
>>196445948
specifically the marginal utlity theory is psychological
>>196446043
the transformation problem is touched upon by Marx though, it is just not easily quantifiable
>>196446194
we can calculate the average labor time, but we also need to calculate it for the capital and components that would go into a commodity, for this we need serious, large scale economical data, which simply i doubt we will ever get

It isn't, Marx literally accepted that Value not only comes from human labour, but from the inherent value of resources and how these commodities satisfy the needs of society.

>>196445711
Supply and demand doesn't determine prices, it is merely an abstract way of recognizing that we might need to produce more or less of certain commodity.

>>196446604
Except he doesn't qualify what 'society' is. Ideally you sell the product to a society that needs it the most for the highest value. It's hard to keep an economy political when it's simply hunting value. Smith's LTV was entirely in the confines of a politicized economy that had trade controls to prevent deficits. Marx seemed like he wanted value to be pursued globally, originally socialism was to be implemented on a global scale it was always an internationalist concept.

>>196447141
>Marx seemed like he wanted value to be pursued globally
You have it in reverse, Marxist theory says that value will become increasingly globalized as capital is a totalizing force.

>>196446502
>if you remember goedel's theorem, from a set of key axioms, building up any logical system will eventually lead to statements that are true but which cannot be proven
Godel's conclusions hold for axiomatic formal systems, like mathematics, formal logic and others. Formal systems are deductive in nature, new truths in them are found through pure reasoning from the axioms. Economics, however, insofar as it seeks to be a description of the real world can not function purely deductively, that is, it must use inductive reasoning to make predictions and claims that merely have a chance of being true rather than deriving true statements from first principles.
If we hold that first principles are a valid way of thinking about economics, then we must necessarily hold that Ludwig von Mises' praxeology was a valid attempt at building knowledge on it, and I find this a bit silly
>it's a popperian thing to want refutability
I'm not exactly a popperian, I think Lakatos describes the real functioning of science better. But I do think, though, that Popper was right on the money when he concluded refutability is a vital aspect of a scientific theory (that is, a theory which seeks to explain the world, rather than a description of a formal system like Mathematics, the target of Gödel's incompleteness theorems) it must be refutable, otherwise, how can we go on an honest pursuit of truth without this? It is possible to make infinite irrefutable theories to explain anything, if we don't value refutability then we can't make any discrimination between them and we cannot "approach truth" (I don't think science fully describes reality before anyone accuses me lf being a naïve scientific realism)
>it also seems like veblen goods are not agreed by all that they exist and it seems like a more psychological thing
Precisely. Veblen goods are an illustration of my position. I think that rather than value being an objective thing it's subjective and intersubjective

>>196447369
ran out of space m'anons. I think price reflects the "average valuation of a good" in society under a free marker
I gotta go now my anons. Good discussion, will look at this thread again in the archive later cya excited to read your responses

>>196446604
>Marx literally accepted that Value not only comes from human labour
No? He says in the critique of the Gotha programme that value can come from nature as "used value"

>>196446444
>landlords le bad because I'm a loser
>landlords le bad because my parents were losers like me
>and failed to pass any property over to me

File: Laughing_Marx.jpg (120 KB, 480x563)

120 KB JPG

>>196444720
>marx
>labour theory of value
Kek.

>Just as it is impossible to suspend the complications and contradictions which arise from the existence of money alongside the particular commodities merely by altering the form of money (although difficulties characteristic of a lower form of money may be avoided by moving to a higher form), so also is it impossible to abolish money itself as long as exchange value remains the social form of products. It is necessary to see this clearly in order to avoid setting impossible tasks, and in order to know the limits within which monetary reforms and transformations of circulation are able to give a new shape to the relations of production and to the social relations that rest on the latter.
Grundrisse

>>196447462
Fuck I misread it. Shameful message, ignore it

>>196447369
>Economics, however, insofar as it seeks to be a description of the real world can not function purely deductively, that is, it must use inductive reasoning to make predictions and claims that merely have a chance of being true rather than deriving true statements from first principles.
it's worth noting that Marx is a Hegelian, for him, reality is wrong if it doesn't meet theory (I'm joking, but there is a bit of truth in this)
Hegelian systems so to speak would never really necessarily be empirically testable, i think criticising Marx's Hegelianism through the lens of empiricism is a bit pointless, it's like critiquing platonism from the perspective of artistotelism
>I'm not exactly a popperian, I think Lakatos describes the real functioning of science better.
i don't exactly think economics are really a science in the way that we would say about physics, it is still a social science after all and Marxism isn't an empiricist philosophy
>It is possible to make infinite irrefutable theories to explain anything, if we don't value refutability then we can't make any discrimination between them and we cannot "approach truth"
what is truth? i don't think in practice it really matters, and this is why I like Marx: he makes no huge statements about very big philosophical or theological problems, because what matters more to him (and to us, people living in this reality) is the way beliefs in such systems affect social relations
>Precisely. Veblen goods are an illustration of my position. I think that rather than value being an objective thing it's subjective and intersubjective
it is well known that demand for a product can be manufactured through propaganda, advertisements and such

>>196447365
Maybe the issue is on my end, but he's not a nationalist, so I don't know where he places society. I need to know where society is before I can address its needs.

>>196447644
anything that has social relations will be society, so in today's capitalism it is the entire globe

>>196447644
Marx was a pretty open pan-germanist bro.

>>196447592
>on hegelian philosophy (very brief)
I do find Hegel's and Marx's approaches to historical development very interesting but I don't agree with Hegel's (and by extension Marx's [I know they are different don't call me soy'd for this]) at all
>objective thing it's subjective and intersubjective
it is well known that demand for a product can be manufactured through propaganda, advertisements and such
Exactly, advertisement and propaganda raise the personal subjective and societal intersubjective valuation of a good thus the increase in prices. Labor Theory of value (or any other theory that seeks to explain value objectively) will have a very hard time explaining this

ok I gotta go now for real this time bye will look at the thread in the archive later

>>196447803
>I do find Hegel's and Marx's approaches to historical development very interesting but I don't agree with Hegel's (and by extension Marx's [I know they are different don't call me soy'd for this]) at all
Hegel is very hard to get into, but he is worth reading anyways, a lot of historians tend to favor Marx in general over other philosophers due to his objectivity
>Exactly, advertisement and propaganda raise the personal subjective and societal intersubjective valuation of a good thus the increase in prices
a part of Marx's critique of capitalism is that it produces unnecessary goods, but the demand for them is socially manufactured through the societal superstructure (philosophy, arts, science, etc.)
supply and demand can be distorted according to this, but the actual use value of a Veblen good will always remain the same

>>196447803
>explain "value"
You mean different things by this word than Marx does.

>>196447958
ayo are you that polish guy from r/ultraleft?

>>196448066
I don't go on reddit, no

>explain value
well there are two aspects of value in a commodity, both of which are seperate qualities. one is it's utiliy and the other is it's exchange value (price)

Pretty standard stufd. Did you guys even get by the first chapter of capital? maybe try contribution to the critique of political economy?

>>196447770>>196447644

it's true,look at this quote i found
"i belive in war with russia,in bourgeoisie conflicts and that proletarians have nations,long live the kaiser also don't read critique of the gotha programme"
what a tankie,am i righ reddifolks?

>>196448133
No marx explicitly called germans a great race who should unite with the nordic countries.

>>196444860
>an actual marxist,not deprogramoid redditslop
:)

>>196448179
read.critique.of.the.gotha.programme.

also no he didn't, it would be antithetical to everything he wrote

>>196448261
No it isn't. I read the gotha critic. Marx was always a pan-germanist. His father was a prussian patriot and Marx was by nature mistrustful of slavs.

>>196447770
Germany as a whole was not nationalized at the time, I see your point, but he wouldn't have been thinking in national terms or in terms of borders.

>>196447702
That was my previous assumption. There's no way this concept doesn't snowball as communication broadens.

>>196448353
Except he did think in national terms. He only said that proletarians of all countries should unite for their common interests. That has nothing to do with 'le borders' or whatever.

>>196448346
no he ain't, read Marx-zasulich correspondence
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/index.htm

>>196448212
i generally dislike most modern leftists today, some marxists are just marxist-leninists and i'm not a big fan of Lenin or Stalin
although i wonder if tankies today are the result of Wumao and Active Measures from China and the USSR, respectively
there are a lot of myths surrounding marx which crumble pretty quickly once you actually read him
>>196448414
also one more thing, he doesn't really specify what a post-capitalist society would look like, so it's entirely possible some kind of general social groups equivalent to nations would still exist

>>196448489
This is a decade after the german empire united.

ITT: WORDS WORDS WORDS

Pro tip: Marx was an idiot

>>196448535
yup but it disproves that marx is some kind of crazy pan-germanist that hated russia
i will also search for more studff about slavic nations,since i know he also wrote a lot in favor of the polish revolution

File: 1000_F_479392111_fngeDxUk(...).jpg (300 KB, 1000x563)

300 KB JPG

>>196448590
>retard can't read,blames it on communism

>>196448535
if you by "pan germanist" mean instead he wanted a united german netion duh that's obvious, united germany it's historically progressive

>>196448619
>but it disproves that marx is some kind of crazy pan-germanist that hated russia
But I nevet said that either. He was definitely a pan-germanist, not a "crazy" pan-germanist (whatever that means). He definitely despised the russian empire and autocracy and again, did not trust Slavs.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_09_01a.htm

Read his articles in the New York tribune particularly the russian loan.

>>196448753
>[B]y quarrelling amongst themselves, instead of confederating, Germans and Scandinavians, both of them belonging to the same great race, only prepare the way for their hereditary enemy, the Slav.
The Eastern Question: A Reprint of Letters written 1853 –1856 dealing with the events of the Crimean War, edit., Eleanor Marx Aveling, London, Swan Sonnenschein & Co. (1897) p. 90

>inb4 that was too long ago

The Labor Theory of Value is True not in an economic sense but in a metaphysical sense.
The roads we pave, the factories we build, bring us closer to God for God is the realization of human potential.

>>196448754
>talks about how the defat of the autocratic tzarist regime could be useful to stimulate progress and revolution in russia
how is this racist against the slavs? they couldn't do revolution themselves because capitalism wasn't enough advanced there,and still afterwards (see the other document i sent) he changed idea a little bit
>pan germanism
he still talks about it's benefits in a non-nationalistic manner

>>196448833
this seems taken out of context

>>196448969
>racist
No one uses that word. He still didn't like slavs.
>>196449006
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://delong.typepad.com/files/marx-eastern.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiy5abB7tuFAxVEQ_EDHcKzADwQFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1uYXSNhTxmdOpkthQsEUjr

>>196449075
yeah i worded it poorly.
also please could you give me the page?

Marxists argue that labor is the only source of profit because it is the only
commodity where one can distinguish between ‘commodity’ and ‘commodity-
power.’ When any other commodity is sold, the purchaser takes it lock, stock
and barrel. But with labor, the capitalist ‘purchaser’ does not own the worker.
Instead, he pays a subsistence wage, which can be represented by a bundle
of commodities; [...] The difference between the output of labor and
the cost of maintaining labor-power is the source of profit.
Since no such distinction can be made for machinery, the capitalist ‘gets
what he paid for’ and no more when he buys a machine, whereas with labor,
he gets more than he paid for. Therefore machines transfer their value only
to the product.
This proposition has been shown to lead to severe logical problems, so the
vast majority of critical economists have in practice abandoned Marx’s logic.
However, a minority of economists continue to swear allegiance to what they
perceive as Marx’s method, and continue to strive to invent ways in which
the proposition that labor is the only source of profit can be maintained.
The critiques which have been made of this notion on mathematical
grounds are cogent, but have been challenged by Marxian economists on
philosophical or methodological grounds.
However, there are philosophical reasons why the proposition that labor is
the only source of profit are invalid, and these reasons were first discovered
by Marx himself.
http://digamo.free.fr/keen2011.pdf

File: 7335563-Karl-Marx-Quote-T(...).jpg (762 KB, 3840x2160)

762 KB JPG

>>196449309
Page 90

And Marx had rather tame racial views compared to say, Engels.

If a nineteenth-century capitalist Machiavelli had wished to cripple the
socialist intelligentsia of the twentieth century, he could have invented no
more cogent weapon than the labor theory of value. Yet this theory was the
invention, not of a defender of capitalism, but of its greatest critic: Karl Marx.
Marx used the labor theory of value to argue that capitalism harbored
an internal contradiction, which would eventually lead to its downfall and
replacement by socialism. However, Marx’s logic in support of the labor
theory of value had an internal contradiction that would invalidate Marx’s
critique of capitalism if it could not be resolved. Consequently, solving this
enigma became the ‘Holy Grail’ for Marxist economists. Whereas nineteenth-
century revolutionaries spent their time attempting to overthrow capitalism,
twentieth-century revolutionaries spent theirs attempting to save the labor
theory of value. Capitalism itself had no reason to fear them.
Despite valiant efforts, Marxist economists failed in their quest – and they
achieved little else. As a result, while Marx’s thought still has considerable
influence upon philosophers, historians, sociologists and left-wing political
activists, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, Marx and Marxists are
largely ignored by other economists.1 Most non-orthodox economists would
acknowledge that Marx made major contributions to economic thought, but
it seems that overall Samuelson was right: Marx was a ‘minor Post-Ricardian’
– someone who took classical economics slightly farther than had David
Ricardo, but who ultimately led it into a dead end.

>>196449431
Is this chatgpt?
Labour theory of value is not Marx. It's classical economy and the whole point of Marx is that the contradiction in capital is beteeem exchange and use value, something LTV cannot explain. That LTV doesn't explain value is the first thing you will reqd in Capital.

See also>>196447510

>>196449379
By the abrogation of the Lex
90 The Eastern Question
Eogia the succession to Denmark and ScMes-wig -would be
assimilated to that of the German Duchy of Holstein, and
Russia, having the next claims on Holstein, as the representative of the House of Holstein, Gottorp, would, in the
quality of chief agnate, also obtain the next claim on the
Danish throne. In 1848-50, Denmark, being assisted by
Russian notes and fleets, made overtures to Germany in
order to maintain the Lex Eegia, -which forbade Schles-wig
to be united -with Holstein, and to be separated from Denmark. After having beaten the German revolution under
the pretext of the Lex Eegia, the Czar confiscates democratic Denmark by abrogating the same law. The Scandinavians and the Germans have thus made the experience
that they must not found their respective national claims on the feudal laws of Royal succession. They have made
the better experience, that, by quarrelling amongst themselves, instead of confederating, Germans and Scandina-
•\dans, both of them belonging to the same great race, only
prepare the way for their hereditary enemy, the Slav.

i think it's pretty clear he's talking from the prespective of germans and scandinavians

also are you perchance a marxist

File: laughing pepe.jpg (56 KB, 680x1069)

56 KB JPG

>Similarly, Marx rejected Smith’s musings on the productivity of machinery,
and concurred with Ricardo that a machine only added as much value to
output as it lost through depreciation:
>The maximum loss of value that they can suffer in the process, is plainly
limited by the amount of the original value with which they came into the
process, or in other words, by the labor-time necessary for their produc-
tion. Therefore, the means of production can never add more value to the
product than they themselves possess independently of the process in which
they assist. However useful a given kind of raw material, or a machine, or
other means of production may be, though it may cost £150, or, say 500
days’ labor, yet it cannot, under any circumstances, add to the value of the
product more than £150. (Marx 1867)

>>196449557
>i think it's pretty clear he's talking from the prespective of germans and scandinavians
This is his reflection on the First Schleswig War. Again at the same time he also wrote:

>The only possible solution which will preserve Germany's honor and Germany's interest is, we repeat, a war with Russia.
Marx-Engels Gesamt-Ausgabe, Erste Abteilung, Volume 7, March to December 1848, p. 304. Friedrich Engels. The Frankfurt Assembly Debates the Polish Question.

I can go even deeper but that will take too long this is what I have at hand. No I'm not marxist.

>>196449670
i'm pretty sure this can be another generic geopolitical consideration that can be disproven with context

yeah,i imagined you weren't

>>196444720
Meh.
Marxist did really really bad man then invented esoteric bullshit words to create an economic belief system that is based on his "debunking of calculus". He even admitted his crap was flawed only a thought experiment.
Trust me. Go memorize some comic books, it's better than going into the pseudo babble that is Marxism. Just to even talk about takes reading books of insane definitions with vague meanings. It's a cult really. You could spend 10 years with Marxist learning their bizarre word definitions and phrases just to try to talk to them and they don't even know 1 isn't 0.
Tldr Marxism is based on the belief that 1=1=0=2=infinite numbers when you boil his proofs all the way down. It's pointless to learn and I wish I never had to learn it. Go with comic books. More actual information.

File: 20240405_181345.jpg (1.29 MB, 3320x1880)

1.29 MB JPG

>>196449757
>i'm pretty sure this can be another generic geopolitical consideration that can be disproven with context
Cope.

>The redeeming feature of war is that it puts a nation to the test. As exposure to the atmosphere reduces all mummies to instant dissolution, so war passes supreme judgment upon social systems that have outlived their vitality.
https://marxengels.public-archive.net/en/ME0948en.html

>>196449819
bro i just proved you that your last argument you spent minutes on was a sentence taken out of context i don't trust you anymore and i don't mean to bring this conversation any further given our past conversation

>>196449869
You didn't prove anything put of context and I only made two (2) statements.
1. Marx was a pan-germanist
2. He didn't think highly of Slavs
None of this is controversial to any Marx scholar.

File: karl-marx-did-calculus-v0(...).jpg (46 KB, 640x430)

46 KB JPG

>>196449815
Here you go.
Marx,'s actual math that his entire system is based on.
I'm so happy I learned all those words.

>>196449915
how exactly does this deboonk Marx?

>>196450006
Is this a real question
You don't see the math flaw in the very basus for Marx's beliefs. Look at it again. Communism is based on this. Just look at it.

File: gdp per capita ppp and ec(...).png (150 KB, 1056x1524)

150 KB PNG

what is the point of learning all this fringe crap with ideosyncratic definitions and a bloody and retarded historical record just to be able to potentially debunk it? Do you expect me to give Islam the same treatment? Oh no you don't understand that wasn't REAL islam, that's based on a mistranslation of a hadith blah blah blah. All in service of an autistic utopian ideology which makes extreme claims about how much power you should give them. Not interested

>>196449915
That essay has nothing to do with marx's critique of capital retard

File: 91c.png (22 KB, 1536x2048)

22 KB PNG

>>196450213
>you should be happy with being ethically replaced because you can afford iphones

>>196450397
>you should be happy with being ethnically* replaced because the immigrants are class comrades
>also don't say bad word or you go to gulag

>>196450213
also
>muh gdp per capita
By this logic my neighbor who lives in a commie block is worth 100,000 euros because the housing bubble has inflated an asset he inherented from communism lol to a ridiculous price

Such bs!

>>196450459
Bro shut the fuck up lmao, there was not a single nigger in my town until (((democracy))) bought them here

>>196450500
>>196450468
bringing up muh immigration is hilariously ironic coming from the left, but yes that is a problem with many capitalist regimes. I'd still prefer it to north korea or china.
>By this logic my neighbor who lives in a commie block is worth 100,000 euros because the housing bubble has inflated an asset he inherented from communism lol to a ridiculous price
what lol? GDP isn't real because... housing bubbles? I have bad news about the glorious marxist people's republic of china btw

>>196450587
Your post has nothing to do with what I said.

Yes GDP is fake. Your money is all 'money printer go brrrrrr'. If the fed stopped printing money, your whole economy will crash.

>>196444720
When a Marxist discovers economics they instantly transform into a moderate socialist.

>>196450615
>Your post has nothing to do with what I said.
sometimes it's hard to interpret exactly which retarded proposition or misunderstanding you're advocating. My bad
>Yes GDP is fake. Your money is all 'money printer go brrrrrr'. If the fed stopped printing money, your whole economy will crash.
like what does this even mean. I really am struggling to grasp it

>>196450675
>misunderstand my post
>durr you're retarded.
You don't even know how money or debt works. You are not worth the trouble to lecture.

File: gdp per capita and population.png (45 KB, 640x489)

45 KB PNG

>>196450703
how is GDP fake when GDP is real, for example
why does fractional reserve banking bother you so much
if the fed printing money works so well why doesn't everyone do it, why aren't Argentina and Zimbabwe rich

>>196450807
Gdp is only a speculative measurement of how much money is circulating in the economy. Stop issuing currency and you will see how quickly real growth will stop. The economic system you create apologia for requires migrants to come in and take on welfare (debt) all in a bid to keep the green line going up.
>if the fed printing money works so well because they're not actually building anything with it. Likewise you also will not be able to build anything either without bank loans. It is impossible to pay either the united states debt or the interest rate. Defaulting is a mathematical certainty the future generations will be facing. You're on borrowed time.

They’re not even approximately similar concepts. What the LTV implies is that somewhere between raw materials being input and the output of a sold commodity, value has been added and that value comes from labor. Supply and demand is about price.

>>196450213
To be fair, you’re equating the Labor Theory of Value as a whole with political Marxism but they’re different. Marxism includes certain ethical mandates but the Labor Theory of Value does not.

>>196444720
it’s not. marx didn’t understand most economic literature, so he resorted to semantics games to baffle people. You could tell that most marxists nowadays also don’t understand supply and demand as they believe them to be fixed quantitative values instead of functions of an economy

>>196447467
>merit is the only indicator of success, chud
>but I get to be born with the fruits of success hehe
>hmm? why??? because of my daddy's benis and mommy's vagene

>>196452061
factual and correctpilled
NO VERIFICATION REQUIRED

>>196452061
Even without nepotism, merit alone doesn't solve demand. Sadly propaganda has more ability to move markets than anything else. You could be the best in the world at what you do, if there's no demand there's no demand. It's one of the things I hate about this world tbqh.

This was a good thread till the dishonest retardburger came to interrupt the adults talking