come on down to Das Kapital, we have:>value!>mudpies!>what about art?>what about demand?>Robinson Crusoe!millions of people have opinions about it! even fewer have read it - much less all three volumes! maybe *your* copies also have uncut pages, indicating no one checked them out in the 90 years they sat at the library where they came from!
Ironically despite Marx putting a lot of work into this book, it contains nothing of value.
>>23625292He is so boring when he talks about economics. I don't care about the production of linen. Talk to me about history and culture.
>>23625292>>what about demand?Social necessity "realised". Read Capital 1.>>mudpies!Assuming they're socially necessary, ie "realised," ie "actually sold," average skill socially necessary labour time. Read Capital 1.>>what about art?Look into the Italian labour structure of art in the renaissance and apprenticeships. Or into the mass reproducibility of art as commodity dependent on sale: Read Capital 3.>>What about Demand?Realisability, use-value. Read Capital 1.>>Robinson CrusoeNot a society where wage labour is the primary mode of subsistence of the labouring class. Read Capital 1.Might want to read it.>>23625365>Ironically despite Marx putting a lot of work into this book, it contains nothing of value.Strange that, given it has been solid and Penguin is selling it at a profit.
>>23625371Youre not an academic youre a pundit.
>>23625378I was given a specious series of meme-grade tripe about a major text. Why not proffer a critique of the TROPF?
>>23625383Because you don't want one.
>>23625368someone didn't read past the first couple of chapters>>23625371>anon didn't detect the sarcasm in the OPanyway the biggest flaws with the work in my opinion are:>taking the barter myth at face value (via Smith)>assuming profit rates equalize (via Ricardo)of these profit rate equalization has caused the most trouble, since it directly leads to the transformation problem. this "problem" is easily solved by noticing that profit rates don't actually equalize
>>23625292I'm sure there is some sort of culture behind the mudpie joke but Marx literally addresses this in either chapter 1 or chapter 2.
I believe one should acquaint themselves with Hegelianism first to properly understand Marxism. For Das Kapital, you would do well to read classical economic texts as well if you really want to dive into that. Dry text.Hegel's dialectic is the foundation of Marx's thought, so you should be familiar with that. Marx believed that Hegel's philosophy needed to be "inverted" to reveal its true significance. While Hegel viewed the progression of history as the self-realization of spirit or God and the dialectic directing it, Marx believed history was driven by material conditions, specifically the mode of production. Marx argued that capitalism contained contradictions that would lead to its overthrow and the emergence of a communist society. Despite criticisms, Marx praised Hegel for presenting the dialectical method comprehensively, and used it as the basis for the framework he developed. Marx adapted Hegel's dialectic to a materialist theory of history, translating Hegel's theory into a scientific form. Marx's theory posits man as a producer, with material production as the primary activity. This materialist conception of history removes the mystification of spirit activity, emphasizing that man creates the world through material production, and is the main influencer of his surroundings and environment. This is his most revolutionary contribution to philosophy, and his most compelling, in my view.
Why does anyone unironically believe in the labor theory of value when it is obviously false, and the utility theory of value is obviously true?
>>23627019
>>23627068It's plain as daylight. No one wants a product that is useless, no matter how much labor went into it. Meanwhile things that fell from the sky with zero labor are sometimes very useful, therefore valuable.Is there any getting around this for Marxists? Why is anyone still a Marxist when such a foundational problem exists? What is the most sophisticated apologetic for the labor theory of value today? Can some new (some may say, cope) form of Marxism survive without it?
>>23627089>what if I make mudpies?you've already been mocked in the OP anon. you have to actually read the book if you are going to le epically own the gommies
>>23627089>Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.
Why do marxists all look like this?
>>23627164
>>23627116Not him, but nothing written in this thread refutes any critique put forth. Saying "you are mocked!!!" isn't especially convincing. Labour is, of course, not valuable in and of itself.
>>23627176>>23627153
>>23627116I have read, and I have not understood. That is why I asked for your strongest steelman on the subject. Not a bad faith question, I pwomise.Also it would be much appreciated if you could give an answer in your own words, even on the level of a brief 4chan post (we're here now, after all)>>23627153It is indeed prudent that we should contrive a unit of labor in order to furnish the labor theory of value, if we have one. However, it does not answer my question.
>>23627153>I am right if you assume all these specific caveats (which of course can not be assumed to be true) are trueWhat a reductionist and simplistic view of the world. "Average labour power ", lmao. I guess higher GDP is always good as long as line goes up, lets just produce garbage and then burn it. GDP goes up since there's a lot of labour involved, what can go wrong
>>23627089What does Marx say in chapter 1 or 2 about producing something with no exchange value?
>>23627205Why don't you tell us if you know? >labour increases value >but not if nobody wants to buy it!!!Ergo... labour does not necessarily increase the value of the product
>>23627198that's not how GDP works. you'd know this if you actually read the book
>>23626028>taking the barter myth at face value (via Smith)>assuming profit rates equalize (via Ricardo)I am a retard. What is the barter myth and profit equalization? And what did marx's belief in these cause
>>23627211He said labor is wasted on such endeavors unless the person just wants something to do for themselves, the result of which may or may not even possess any use value to the person doing it. If so, then maybe to that person it wasn't a waste, if not then it was a complete waste. He spells this out in incredibly simple terms, so your characature can be interpreted to mean you didn't read it, or you are so stupid you need someone to tell you what was written in incredibly simple terms.
>>23627215the barter myth is the notion that there was some phase of history in which there was no general equivalent with which to trade, no money commodity. this isn't actually true as far as we can tell from the archeological record. money arrives on the scene with agriculture, grain being one of the first forms of moneyprofit rate equalization is the notion that the rate of profit (return on investment) should become the same in all industries over time. this isn't actually the case however - different industries have different amounts of overhead for technical reasons. you cannot stop investing in tractors in agriculture to invest in say bitcoin, because people need to eat
>>23627228Thanks. Makes sense
>>23627220Of course I didn't read it, because why would anyone spend time reading a book that could as equally be named "Retarded shit I thought of that has been proven wrong again and again and doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny: The Book". The fact that nothing in it holds up can be seen very clearly when every response to even the slightest criticism is "b-but you didn't r-read it!" or if the person read it "b-but y-you didn't understand it! Y-you got to have faith in it!!"
>>23627220So what you are saying is that labour does not increase the value of a product unless it's valuable labour that actually makes the product better and more sellable. Gee, who could have thought?
>>23627258Is this you? >>23627196You have already established yourself as a retard, I suppose you are bumping the thread at this point but you can't even seem to maintain any coherence.
>>23627234much ink has been spilled trying to figure out how profit rates could be the same across sectors while at the same time overhead ("organic composition of capital" in Marx' terms) is different. turns out they aren't
>>23627228>profit rate equalization is the notion that the rate of profit (return on investment) should become the same in all industries over timeThat's a very strange notion. Are there any logical arguments to why that would be the case? Seems absurd when taken at face value.
>>23627271No, that's not me. I haven't read it and I won't ever waste my time on doing so. These threads are fun to read through though just to see the dumb-as-fuck arguments from the commies that revere these types of books like they are religious gospel (which I guess they are in a sense).
>>23625368Do you care about the prodúction of history and culture, at least?
>>23627295Well in this case you are the retard, so I suppose if finding comedy in your own mental impairment has value to you then that is entirely your affair.
>>23627198GDP tracks economic activity, not if it’s good or bad. a useful tool, but it can fuck all if misused
>>23627286>Are there any logical arguments to why that would be the case? Seems absurd when taken at face valueit's what happens when you think finance is actually real
>>23627220So, utility theory of value.
Marxism is a science. The beauty of it is that it is not just an economic concept, but also a critique of how capitalism stands in the way of human flourishing and the realization of a more just and fulfilling society. This moral critique underlies Marx and Engels’ vision of communism as a society that transcends alienation, where individuals are free to engage in diverse and fulfilling activities, a better world where humans are driven by authentic desire, no longer defined by their relationship to work as a means of survival or profit. It creates a freer and more just society. Capitalism alienates humanity in multiple ways. From production, from the land, and from itself. This interconnected web of alienation, born of the distorted objectification of work under capitalism, is a key element of Marx’s critique. For Marx, the abolition of private property and the establishment of a communist society are what will bring about a reappropriation of labor, ending alienation and allowing individuals to realize their full potential as free and creative beings. Marxism is therefore the pinnacle of self-actualization and liberation.
Georges Sorel completed Marxism. Read the chapter on him in Sternhell's Birth of Fascist Ideology.
>>23627395>A thing can be a use value, without having value, this is the case when it's value to man is not derived of labor. Such as air, virgin soil, natural meadows, etc. A thing can be useful, and the product of human labor, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labor creates indeed use values, but not commodities. In order to produce the latter he must not only produce use values, but use values for others, social use values. Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labor contained in it; the labor does not count as labor, and therefore creates no value.Make of that what you like, if you don't like it shop around for a different method of making sense of it.
>>23627003I have heard that Marx didn't comprehend Hegel in itself but Feuerbach's interpretations on Hegel (who was one of the so-called leftist hegelians). So, apart from Hegel, knowing a bit of Feuerbach could be beneficial.
>>23627332true"America can't go bankrupt because we can print our own money." -Jared Bernstein>But that begs the question, why are we borrowing money in a currency that we print ourselves in the first place?"Well you see.... uhm some of this stuff gets...."
>>23627638>America can't go bankrupt because we can print our own money That shit stems from the Modern Monetary Theory, which can be refuted easily if you consider money as a debt emission from the state. The fact that some monetary theories treat money as magic does not necessarily conclude in that all finance is a made up fiction.
This is one of the book where I read chapter after chapter , underline some things, say to myself "ok I get this. Quite clear. Ok, makes sense". Then I finish first volume and momentarily forget what I read lol. One the recents nights I picked it up on a whim - read first chapter of volume 2nd, quite clear prose, ok made sense to me as i read it, but now what it was about? Something about companies needing to have machine powered by people in factories 24/7 to not lose money which leads to alienation of worker cuz worker has no power over machine which he does not own but is rather appendage to machine and is easily replaceable tool. Well... Maybe I will attempt to read it other time, I do have much more exciting books on my wishlist tho
>>23627533Marx used Feuerbach as the basis of his arguments in the German ideology to lay the foundation of historical materialism, but it doesn’t mean he didn’t read Hegel. In both the German Ideology and in Capital he cites directly to Hegel. Feuerbach was his contemporary. At the time there was a split on interpretations on Hegel (young vs old Hegelians).
>>23627638>>23627670the US is in a rather unique position that every other uses is currency for things, notably oil. this means that when the US prints money it is indirectly taxing the rest of the worldfrom a Marxist perspective, money printing ála MMT is an indirect tax on capital if that money is spent on things that benefit workers
>>23627153why do people write like this, the whole thing reads like a run on sentence. So far as, such as, that is, blah blah shut the fuck up I'm getting a headache just reading this
>>23627220if >>23627153is how the entire book is written, then it is not spelled out in incredibly simple terms the whole thing is a word salad
>>23628750>>23628755>anon's first encounter with Germaneverything written by krauts is like this. or maybe I should say: everything by krauts, which like this is, is written
>>23628755If that is word salad to you then go back to the YA section, the anti-natalists would probably accept you, those retards love complaining.
>>23628757Heh. Good post.
