It was probably the hardest book I've ever read. Simple reproduction was very frustrating to read and I don't understand it that well, especially with gold production. Reading expanded reproduction though was pretty fun. The rest of the chapters were quite boring but cleared up most questions. It's clearly an unfinished book.The whole book in a literary sense is a desert with some good gems here and there.Overall very insightful, even if many people seem to skip it and jump to the third volume, or rather not read it at all, read like the first 100 pages of Capital and then become professors of critical theory.I still don't quite understand what the 'transformation problem' is supposed to be. The way I understand is that there is no reason for the inputs to be in prices of production + average profit rate, as Marx deals with the production process (in the first volume and elsewhere) in labor-times, not in prices of production (+ average profit rate), which are a sort of ex post thing, how surplus value is redistributed due to competition and other things. In any case, total value = total commodity money and total surplus value = total profit should still be correct. I'm not sure if the input-output schema even works for Marx.I've already read a bit of the third volume now, so I'll see if there really is a contradiction.
you should try reading some real economics textbooks. capital is a mess which is why marx never published volumes 2 and 3.
>>24986044Neoclassical economics is founded on utilitarianism (hence marginal utility theory), so, on liberal bourgeois ideology in the first place. I don't see it as a science or anything close to it, since it is clear that the goal of economics (neoclassical economics) is to find ways to make as much money as possible for capitalists while obfuscating the real relations of production and providing justifications for the capitalist mode of production.Marginal utility theory, like utilitarianism, begins from axioms, which, as always, are not meant to be proven. They select these axioms and not different ones based on, what? They can't be proven, there is nothing inherently more true, in a strict logical sense, about any one set of them. For economists, these axioms are there because they 'work', because they, in a vulgar empiricist sense, provide the 'science' and the theory for bourgeois states and individual capitalists.
>>24986051One economist somewhere remarked at someone pointing out the pure tautology of revealed preferences in a very honest way. They claimed that this person, who was criticizing marginalism, has no other alternative and thus doesn't understand the point of economics. For economists, all that matters is making more money for capitalists, as a class, as factions of capital and individual capitalists. It really is true that Marx has almost nothing to offer for capitalists. He doesn't offer any ways to trick buyers, how to speculate, etc.
>>24986051lol
What did you think of Volume I? I'm sure you posted it before but I must have missed it
>>24986051>Neoclassical economics is founded on utilitarianism (hence marginal utility theory)Those have nothing to do with each other.There's nothing more empirical than marginal utility, because instead of making pretty much metaphysical speculations about 'value' it sticks to observable behavior, and assigns value to that which people try to get, and this, importantly, in their actions and not their words.It's Marx who develops an epicycle zoo of different 'values' and types of goods and capital which leads nowhere and failed to predict or even explain the economic development of the late 19th, let alone 20th century.
>>24986418Nothing, he doesn't know how 2 think
>>24986502can you do me a service and use a trip so I can filter you from now on?
>>24986522Best I can do is a dynamic ip and harass this low speed pseud fag nerd invalid incel board for the next 3 months nonstop, sorryyyyyy
