Authors who have to live off other people should not talk about economics, self-reliance, or anything other than how to sponge off your friends. Marx, Thoreau, go fuck yourselves.

>>25046434
I've grown out of him but I read nearly all of his major works in college and definitely gained a lot from it. His economic ideas are worth learning for historical reasons, but there's nothing in them that isn't either:
A. In modern economics textbooks
B. Disproven by the marginal revolution

His writings on metaphysics responding to the other young Hegelians, particularly his shitting on Stirner in The German Ideology, are great, and probably hold up the best of everything he's written.

His theory of history is his most relevant and cited idea, and also his most useful. It's worth learning, though you'll probably get a better understanding of it (or a more useful version of it) from reading G. A. Cohen instead of him. Nevertheless Marx from day one has mostly been read and propagated by dogmatists who have unwavering faith in everything he said. In other words most people who read Marx are marxists, who are wrong about a lot of the things they believe. Within the marxist cult it's high-status to believe in a "materialist explanation" for every single phenomenon, rather than in the most likely explanation. Therefore everything that ever happens ever must be because of class conflict, no matter how strong the evidence that the effect had some other cause. It's status-seeking, not truth-seeking, and it's a vice to be avoided. The most Marxian explanation is not always the best.

>>25046434
Having worked through about half of Kapital I'm convinced that maybe 1% of people discussing Marx online have tried to thoroughly read and understand him, and even fewer have succeeded. There's too much depth of reference, so most people rely on tropes and assumptions based on the manifesto.

>>25046434
I'm not sure how much I really believe this, but I sometimes like to take a kind of preterist view of Marxist historiography. He was right that the class structure and economic system of his time was inefficient and was doomed to be destroyed by its internal contradictions and replaced by a new more stable system, but I think that kind of already happened in the 1930's with the rise of Keynesianism and central banking, which stabilized the boom and bust cycle, enabled economic growth to correlate with improved quality of life for all people (well, this started near the end of the 19th century but you could describe it as part of the same shift), and introduced a lot of centralization and government control to the economy. We're already in the stage after capitalism, and we'll transition further to yet another stage after labor is rendered obsolete by artificial general intelligence. There was even a lot of (revisionist) Marxist influence in the social democratic movements that effected these changes in the world economy, and in a timeline without Lenin might have been considered the prophesied worldwide socialist revolution.

>>25046434
gay nigger faggot

>>25046549
Dialectical materialism is the most useful historical analysis tool we have. We owe an enormous debt to Marx for that.

>>25046434
I think most of what was seen about Marx as a groundbreaking new theory in historiography has become so commonplace in the field of history that people sometimes have a hard time formulating what is special about it, which tends to lead to overstating or exaggerating certain points about his views on history.

For example, in any practical 'material' analysis of a political event, Marx would not deny the effect of individuals or particular ideas as some people have come to think he would. His 18th brumaire is a great example. Obviously what is being analyzed there is not exclusively broad macroeconomics and class conflicts between large, anonymous classes, but also a very particular coup by a very particular figure (Napoleon the III) and the particular events that lead up to it. It is just that those particular, individual changes always have to be put into the economic or 'material' context, like the liberal and royalist factions which consist of particular individuals making particular mistakes, but who also get their base of support from different economic classes and interest, like new industrial capital vs old money landed gentry vs rural farmers nostalgic for the Napoleonic era. As he says in the 18th Brumaire as well, "men make history, but they cannot make it as they please"

This is essentially what any respectable modern Historian also does, just without calling it 'Marxist'. Nobody these days analyzes history as someone like i.e Cayley would do, where it is about isolated great men and great idealistic movements moving on their own merit detached from their moment in history. Sure they matter, but they must always be put into a concrete economic context.

>>25046434
tendency of the rate of profit to fall has been proven incorrect so far

material conditions are not good predictors of history when there's so many variables, like language and geography.

Marx is a guide to being a capitalist, he has little to do with socialism, sell your frock coats

>>25046434

LTV is not debunked though. Every commodity is created by labour. Without labour there is no commodity. Also exploitation is a fact. Capitalists do make money from other people's labour. You can frame it differently than Marx did without involving economic jargon but the underlying reality remains the same.

Total snoozefest. I think if I had the desire to read him or Lukacs or any Marxist, I would make an appointment with the doctor because clearly some disease has taken over my brain.

>wrong per say
FYI op is a guy who's never read a book in his life and is self-taught through youtube videos.

>>25046613
I used to be a wignat, but Marx is actually pretty interesting.

>>25046618
The author of the post hasn't read Capital, although it's not much different from Atlas Shrugged and Rich Dad Poor Dad.

>>25046511
This is not going to resonate on a board where many participants are NEET's or full-time students.

>What does /lit/ think of Marx's works
It's nonsense, he was a seething moron

>>25046511
>>25046820

Everyone lives off of other people. That's what living in a society means. You'd know that if your brain wasn't completely rotted by alienation to the point where you'd think the individual and his work exists completely independent from everything else

>>25046549
Hegel was wrong. Technological and scientific progress is linear because its based on the accumulation of objective truths, but "social progress" is cyclical because it's based on pathos and irregularly shifting unfalsifiable social norms.

>>25046611
The economics is the only part that grants it any credibility, otherwise it's just baseless moralfagging that can't be proven one way or the other.

If you disprove the economics and you disprove the historical dialectic, it's completely worthless as a predictor and is just another egalitarian religious cult.

>>25046830
Then what's wrong with bourgeois exploitation of proletarian labour?

>>25046576
QRD on dialectical materialism?

>>25046894
That's a lot of words for a post that doesn't actually say anything.

>If you disprove the economics and you disprove the historical dialectic
I have a theory that all mainstream (that is non-pomo) anti-marxism is a result of midwittism and I'm constantly proven right.

>>25046894
>If you disprove the economics and you disprove the historical dialectic, it's completely worthless as a predictor
You might have a problem as it's just a development of adam smith and ricardo, so you'd be disproving economics generally

Marx was a fat lazy Jew who was wrong about almost everything. You only have to take him seriously as a philosopher because commies will fucking kill you if you don't.

>>25046922
>>25046905
Marginal utility is completely triumphant, just because LTV was once widely accepted doesn't mean it still is

The fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. For it considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism.

On the other hand, socialism maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision—who builds the social order through such decisions—disappears.

From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property. A person who is deprived of something he could call 'his own,' and of the possibility of earning a living through his own initiative, comes to depend on the social machine and on those who control it. This makes it much more difficult for him to recognize his dignity as a person and hinders progress towards the building up of an authentic human community.

>>25046946
What determines prices when the marginal gains and losses are 0, i.e. in equilibrium?

>>25046974
Cost of production, which includes not only labor but also land and capital.

>>25046946
LTV has never been widely accepted, even though it is obviously & objectively correct. Keynesfags and Chicago/Austrian gaylords have repeatedly demonstrated their inability to predict/moderate/explain market factors since time immemorial.

>>25046968
>Polack is a raging anti-communist
I am snoozing.

>>25046434
who debunked the labor theory of value?
>>25046549
the marginal counterrevolution (by the way, not even 'invented' by menger or jevons) 'disproves' Marx by completely reinventing political economy, from the focus of the social reproduction of society to individual utility (principle of utility), something that neither menger, nor jevons, nor any of their sycophantic predecessors invented, but it was something popularized by Bentham (actually plagiarized from older French authors)
>>25046594
read volume 3's third chapter's second part, where he lays out the counter tendencies (all of which, I think, have prevailed in the real world)
>>25047011
and Marx's prices of production doesn't include "capital" (what you really mean: constant capital, that is, fixed capital + circulating capital, excluding labor-power)? retarded nigger

>>25046434
limited to the material conditions of the 19th century, completely wrong about it being the final stage of history, managed to take over the left and made talking about non-socialist revolutions impossible

>>25047022
Totally fucking wrong lmao. Also what other left-wing revolutions could there possibly be? Anarchoids are irrelevant. Who's left? Gracchusites?

>>25047011
and how does someone generate a profit under this theory?

>>25047028
>Totally fucking wrong lmao.
ok socialist
>Also what other left-wing revolutions could there possibly be?
jacobin and bourgeois revolutions

The story is apocryphal, but still useful, that when Pierre-Simon de Laplace showed his scientific model of the solar system to Napoleon, he was asked why God was absent from the model. He replied "I did not need to make such an assumption". The same reply ought to be given to those who bitterly complain and resent that economists haven't used the labor theory of value for 150 years. There is no need to make such an assumption. There is no phenomenon in economics which can be predicted and explained by the LTV but cannot be better predicted or explained by modern economics. If there were, Marxists would be able to make a fortune in the stock market with their special knowledge. They can only provide metaphysical arguments. From a scientific perspective, there is no benefit in adding the premise to economic theory. Karl Popper was kind of right when he called marxism a pseudoscience.

>>25046968
I think the fundamental defect of the modern Left is a complete lack of cognitive empathy. They operate on a single, fatal assumption: that everyone no matter their culture or background wants exactly the same things they do. When reality contradicts this badly, they don’t just disagree; they become completely unhinged. I don't believe they possess true empathy at all, I’m not going to group them up, but i’m talking solely about the terminally online and activists who are simply hallucinating that the entire world shares their values, which leads them to conclude that anyone who disagrees must be the devil or Hitler or water idol they subscribe too.

They project these Post-war anti-racist abstractions like 'universal love' onto the Third World, completely failing to realize that many of those demographics hold a much more opportunistic, survivalist outlook . The conservatives leaning ones are at least more constructive because it is grounded in reality.They prioritize their family and country, recognizing that the rest of the world does not necessarily think like them.

File: 1758716466877250.jpg (35 KB, 500x500)

35 KB JPG

>>25047034
>jacobin and bourgeois revolutions
I'm gonna throw up

>>25047039
you could say that bourgeois revolutions haven't completely completed, note the lack of freedom of religion in many countries around, the role of presidents (who as a matter of fact, generally violate the separation of powers)

>>25047039
get your stank socialist ass out of the left, there's a reason why we've got aristocracy and nepotism coming out in full force. we must restore bourgeois europe at any cost!

>>25047036
>Karl Popper was kind of right when he called marxism a pseudoscience.
Oh my god, an irksome libtard faggot was a detractor of Marxism? I guess it's over marxbros let's pack it in.

>>25047031
By selling a commodity at a price higher than its cost of production (taking into account opportunity cost and the time value of money). This isn't possible in a perfectly competitive market, but real markets are much less than perfectly competitive. A firm could create an innovation and be the first firm to sell a particular product, or the firm could have market power due to a natural monopoly or collusion or regulatory capture. Profit is well-understood by economists.

>>25047036
>but cannot be better predicted or explained by modern economics
What is the prevailing explanation that is better? You might be disappointed

>>25047036
>Karl Popper was kind of right when he called marxism a pseudoscience.
nigga called it a "pseudoscience" for the most trivial of reasons and falsifiability hasn't been in fashion for decades, so who the fuck cares

>>25046511
This. Worker ants that live off their employers instead of staring their own businesses deserve to suffer.

>>25047050
Sure, let's say multiple firms are operating in the same market and have captured any surplus profits from innovation or efficiency savings. How do the owners of these firms still accrue profits under these conditions?

>>25047037
Ideological fanatics are often driven by a profound sense of personal discontent, pinning their hopes for happiness on the utopian realization of a specific political system. This is particularly evident in radical egalitarian movements, where the push for enforced equity can stem from a lack of individual agency; by devaluing success, creativity, and productivity, they recast personal underachievement as a systemic grievance. Ultimately, these movements provide a seductive sense of communal identity, allowing individuals to view themselves as heroic revolutionaries 'saving the world' rather than facing the complexities of their own lives.

>>25047046
>irksome libtard faggot
ad hominem
>>25047051
>What is the prevailing explanation that is better?
Explanation of what? I just said the LTV doesn't make any predictions. It doesn't explain anything. The existence of prices is not a mystery to economics. You can invent a toy universe where prices exist but labor doesn't. The existence of prices falls out of simple game theory, and their value is explained by marginal price theory.
>>25047053
>nigga called it a "pseudoscience" for the most trivial of reasons
I just explained the reason. Occam's razor says to discard unnecessary premises. That includes the labor theory of value.
>>>25047064
They don't. No profit at equilibrium.

>>25047065
I do very well for myself and I still hold dearly the idea of a utopian future for people. Why wouldn't you? What other purpose do we have on this planet except to improve things for those who come after?

>>25047076
>>irksome libtard faggot
>ad hominem
Time to go back to r*ddit.

>>25047076
>I just explained the reason.
that's not popper's argument as to why marxism is a pseudoscience-it's entirely based on falsifiability

>>25046434
19th century structuralist bullshit that would be laughed at today had Marx not become the figurehead of a religion.

Even so-called “post structuralists” have to namedrop Marx because he’s part of their religious cult.

>>25047095
And what's the alternative, pray tell?

>>25047076
>The existence of prices is not a mystery to economics. [...] The existence of prices falls out of simple game theory, and their value is explained by marginal price theory.
You wrote it was a better explanation, yet neither game theory or marginal price theory attempt to describe what determines prices when supply and demand are equal or market prices converge

>>25047078
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Giving up more power to centralized government is just asking for troubles. There's a reason why communist utopias worked only as long as there was stolen capital to be spend

>>25047065
>communal identity, allowing individuals to view themselves as heroic revolutionaries 'saving the world' rather than facing the complexities of their own lives.

It is entirely true. It is easy to be an ‘activist’ when you operate purely in the abstract. Concepts like ‘anti-racism’ and ‘free healthcare’ are just slogans to them. The reality is that online Leftists expend more energy defending Third World dictators than they do advocating for the McDonald’s employees in their own neighborhoods. They fetishize these foreign regimes while completely ignoring the people who actually have to live under them. What about the seven million refugees who fled Venezuela? The Left’s callous reaction after Trump dismantled that leadership in two hours was revealing to me. They are flustered because it is deeply humiliating to watch their worldview shatter so quickly, especially without much retaliation. All that fawning over China, all that glazing is going to be for nothing. They fail to realize that Beijing is far more interested in saving its trade deals than in becoming the next Soviet Union.

One quote form Bishop Fulton Sheen articulated this fatal error in socialist thinking perfectly, especially since third world immigration is : 'Pooling your money doesn’t make you a community; a community is what allows you to pool your money in the first place.'

Mass immigration and bountiful social programs are at odds. The left juggles too of these things but it has to drop one or the other. Sanctuary cities destroyed the small benefits you got from the suffocating social programs so popular opinion is slowly turning against the entire project.

>>25047076
>They don't. No profit at equilibrium.
Then how do the owners extract a salary from their firms?

File: 000c99f439c48a87cb4a761e7(...).png (61 KB, 298x287)

61 KB PNG

>>25046566
Imo the fact that keynesianism and other "left" wing economics became dominant is the sign that the individual matters more than the class. The average worker is completely fine with capitalism as long as it doesn't force him into atrocious conditions (hence the rise of non marxian pro-labor movement). There's somewhat of a kojèvian spin to it too. Once the workers got recognized for who they were and their demands met, which albeit changed capitalism structurally, they mostly stopped protesting and the communist cause slowly died out.

>>25046581
great post.
But yeah, it extends in sociology aswell. Bourdieu's habitus is more or less his theory of consciousness proven true.

>>25047021
>>25047064
>>25046974
>LTV
Production and price respond to demand, not the other way around. Just because competition can bring the value to the marginal cost of production doesn't mean that the value comes from production. Profit rates are embedded within the price of a given thing (a "bourgeois" will prefer cutting costs and keep a profit rather than diminish the profit rate for production).

>>25047106
>There's a reason why communist utopias worked only as long as there was stolen capital to be spend
The USSR didn't have any stolen capital. It rapidly industrialized an agrarian nation.

>>25047113
>Profit rates are embedded within the price of a given thing
If there was a 5% profit rate other companies would be incentivized to enter the market and capture those surplus profits. What we're trying to uncover is the origin of prices when everything else is equal including rates of profit, which is what the LTV does

>>25047102
It doesn't need an alternative. It's entirely non-essential.
>>25047051
Modern Monetary Theory

>>25046434
It's 2026 and fags and still using Marginal Utility as a counter argument.

>>25047161
>It doesn't need an alternative. It's entirely non-essential.
So there is no way to analyze why people do what they do? Are you retarded?

>>25047161
I've only heard about MMT in the context of government spending (there being no connection between taxation and spending), what does it say about markets specifically?

>>25047170
Game Theory, Italian theory. Marxism is redundant.

>>25047190
*Italian Elite Theory

>>25047124
funny that they haven't responded to this yet
marginalism has no theory of profit at all, absolutely none
production, quite obviously, will not happen under perfect equilibrium, as the capitalist, too, needs somehow to earn his own personal revenue to live off

>>25047190
>>25047192
>Gay theory
>Shitalian Effete Theory
fucking lmoa

>>25047200
>production, quite obviously, will not happen under perfect equilibrium, as the capitalist, too, needs somehow to earn his own personal revenue to live off
by this I obviously meant in the marginal system, it's not at all a problem for Marx

>>25047124
I don't think you understand. Firms RESPOND to demand, not the other way around. If consumers believe that an apple is too cheap or too expensive, the producers are forced to respond to that DEMAND, and not the other way around.

>What we're trying to uncover is the origin of prices when everything else is equal including rates of profit, which is what the LTV does
That's just competition. The marginalist conception of value doesn't deny that profit can equal 0% in a perfectly competitive market. However, it posits that the price of a good is fundamentally derived from its demand, and not its production costs (which are shaped by demand expectations).

>>25047168
Marginal Utility beats Marxism to death. It cannot recover.

>>25047124

It's such a basic concept really. Things are expensive because a lot of work goes into making them and yet that thing is needed somewhere therefore that work is worthwhile. Marginal Utility can never explain why a Car is more expensive than a Cake.

>>25047200
>marginalism has no theory of profit at all, absolutely none
It does. Time preference, return on investment, innovation etc

Just because competition can bring down the profit rate doesn't mean that the marginalist conception is wrong. It is ultimatly demand and marginal utility which brings production costs, not the other way around.

>>25047208
Why are there cakes worth more than cars? Why are there variable profit margins?

>>25047204
>If consumers believe that an apple is too cheap or too expensive, the producers are forced to respond to that DEMAND
>it posits that the price of a good is fundamentally derived from its demand, and not its production costs (which are shaped by demand expectations).
If value is ultimately subjective isn't this simply equivocating on the question? You wrote this was supposed to be a better theory than LTV

>>25047208
Why does a car lose 50% of its value the moment it leaves the lot?

>>25047223
Value is subjective, that's why any accurate discussion of how it works sounds like an equivocation.
Value = the perception of Value, there is no absolute Value.

>>25047224
It doesn't, but you were tricked into thinking it does.

>>25047235
The trick is value.

>>25047223
>If value is ultimately subjective isn't this simply equivocating on the question?
I accept your concession. Thank you for recognizing that demand is what drives investment and production.

>You wrote this was supposed to be a better theory than LTV
It is.

>>25047212
>It does. Time preference, return on investment, innovation etc
you're simply dodging the question by pointing to other factors which, under long-term competitive production cancel out

>>25047227
Marxist value is not emotional value based on feelings of want and/or need, it is an economic reality of all the (both visible and hidden) costs of labor, production, machinery, trade, and more. I don't know why I even opened this thread, it's obvious any "debate" about Marx is just people who have read him versus people who haven't but think they know more anyway. You've already made up your mind, anyone who proves you wrong will be ignored or you'll just pull a motte-and-bailey.

>>25047250
It's clearly not that otherwise Marx would have no theory of alienation or exploitation. It's clear that LTV is an attempt at an absolute theory of true value and not just a self-evident description of the cost to produce a given product which anyone would agree with.

>>25047227
>>25047240
The thread was initiated on the basis LTV was wrong in making an objective determination on the origins of prices and that a better theory exists, yet we've finally uncovered your theory is subjective and an equivocation on value. That settles the claim

>>25047216

I am actually kinda glad that sign value became a thing in 20th century capitalism . It's better for the rich to waste their money on clearly overpriced luxury shit than hold the labour of rest of the world hostage. Better to sell them something for 5 mil that takes 100k worth of labour to make than to have them actually use 5 mil of societal labour for their luxuries and deprive the rest of the crowd.

>>25047263
You equivocate value with the cost of production and when cost of sale exceeds cost of production, you claim the cost of sale is simply incorrect.

>>25047269
Thank you for admitting that Marxist "analysis" is simply normative moralfaggotry masquerading as social science.

>>25047270
baffling statement, just admit you've never read Marx

>>25047275
>normative moralfaggotry
Preferable to the equally banal, less intelligent, Christcuck/wignat/natsoc moralfaggotry that /pol/oid transposters brought to this board. At least Marxists can do this earnestly, whereas the /pol/ack cannot live up to any of his morals.

>>25047291
for others however:
the value of a commodity is equal to the price of that commodity as a whole, in abstract terms, in reality, the profit rate tends to equalize, so two different capitals with different rates of surplus value will equalize due to competition, so some capitalists will produce more surplus value than they actually get to keep themselves and some will gain more from competition
in reality, the value of an individual commodity generally doesn't match the price but might incidentally do so, however, on a 'macro' scale, total profit is equal to total surplus value, the sum of prices is equal to total value, under competition you simply have a redistribution of surplus value

>>25047320
Did the /pol/acks come because of the rw xitter retards shilling their books here? Or because of their daddydom influencers telling them to read Neechee? This is my first time posting here since 2017 and I don't even see anything about the meme trilogy, and this thread is a thousand times worse than any discussion about Marx back then. It genuinely feels like a completely different board.

>>25047320
Marxism is just secularized Christianity larping as science.

>>25047275

I wouldn't congratulate you for proving that anti-marxist thought is midwitted seething because this thread already does a good job of it.

It's always funny when they think they can "debunk" blatant truths about political economy through paltry nitpicking on technicalities, semantic nonsense and accusations of moralising. They wouldn't need to do that if they actually had a good argument against the very core of the issue. That:

1. Everything humans use come from labour and that is true of all societies in history
2. The fundamental difference between rich and poor comes from who has access to more labour to fulfill their needs/wants
3. Capitalist accumulation of wealth is accumulation of IOUs created by other people's labour.

>>25047332
>Did the /pol/acks come because of the rw xitter retards shilling their books here? Or because of their daddydom influencers telling them to read Neechee?
Some mixture, surely. I came here originally as a right-wing retard, but I've aged out of it.

>>25047341
>1. Everything humans use come from labour and that is true of all societies in history
True.
>2. The fundamental difference between rich and poor comes from who has access to more labour to fulfill their needs/wants
Tautologically true.
>3. Capitalist accumulation of wealth is accumulation of IOUs created by other people's labour.
"IOUs" sound pretty spooky. I don't think is materialism any more.

>>25047340
Christian socialism is coming back, boys.

>>25047355
It never ended. They just pretend to be "spiritual but not religious" now.

impressive, very nice
now let's see marx's analysis of sub-saharan africa

File: 1759809373148666.jpg (59 KB, 715x900)

59 KB JPG

>>25047363
>early 19th century man enjoyed chudding out on occasion
Don't we all?

File: IMG_20260127_041336.jpg (840 KB, 1080x1362)

840 KB JPG

>>25047349
>IOUs" sound pretty spooky. I don't think is materialism any more.

>>25047359
You are once again confusing communism for liberalism. Very different ideologies.

>>25047377
The underlying assumption is that surplus value or the profit margin is simply a part of the Labor Value that is going to the owners rather than the workers. Marginal utility understands that the value of labor is only as much as it costs to pay the laborers and only a fraction of the cost of sale is thus related to labor. Labor is necessary for the product to exist, but so are a lot of things that make up the cost of production. The thing that determines the amount of an item sells for is the amount that the customer is willing to pay for it. That amount minus the cost of production is profit, if profit margins did not exist, not one would want to be a capitalist.
>>25047390
Communism and Liberalism are both universalist humanist ideologies, two branches of the same thing. You talk about people and society very similarly. Marxism at least has a scientific framework even if it's wrong.

>>25047242
Yes. This is actually a big contention in marginal theory because technically, profits shouldn't exist on the long term.

>>25047250
>Marxist value is not emotional value based on feelings of want and/or need
Value is based on demand and needs. Production costs reflect this demand, and not the other way around.

> it is an economic reality of all the (both visible and hidden) costs of labor, production, machinery, trade, and more
These are called production cost, and they are determined relatively to the expected demand.

>You've already made up your mind
oh the irony

>>25047263
>your theory is subjective
Demand is*

>n equivocation on value
Yes, value is subjective and reflects demand. Congrats anon !

>>>/lgbt/

>>25047432
>Yes. This is actually a big contention in marginal theory because technically, profits shouldn't exist on the long term.
so... you admit that marginalism has no theory of profit?
as for marginal utility (itself based on the principle of utility of Bentham), Marx has a funny footnote in Capital:
>Bentham is a purely English phenomenon. Not even excepting our philosopher, Christian Wolff, in no time and in no country has the most homespun commonplace ever strutted about in so self-satisfied a way. The principle of utility was no discovery of Bentham. He simply reproduced in his dull way what Helvétius and other Frenchmen had said with esprit in the 18th century. To know what is useful for a dog, one must study dog-nature. This nature itself is not to be deduced from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he that would criticise all human acts, movements, relations, etc., by the principle of utility, must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch. Bentham makes short work of it. With the driest naiveté he takes the modern shopkeeper, especially the English shopkeeper, as the normal man. Whatever is useful to this queer normal man, and to his world, is absolutely useful. This yard-measure, then, he applies to past, present, and future. The Christian religion, e.g., is “useful,” “because it forbids in the name of religion the same faults that the penal code condemns in the name of the law.” Artistic criticism is “harmful,” because it disturbs worthy people in their enjoyment of Martin Tupper, etc. With such rubbish has the brave fellow, with his motto, “nulla dies sine linea!,” piled up mountains of books. Had I the courage of my friend, Heinrich Heine, I should call Mr. Jeremy a genius in the way of bourgeois stupidity.

>>25046566
I agree with this interpretation. Considering the state of (if, at times, badly handled) labor rights in current times, Marxism has served its purpose. People generally have 40-hour workweeks, OSHA, mandated vacation days, sick leave, social security, and, depending on where you work, strong unions and collective bargaining.
I think this is also why there appears to be less support for socialist/communist movements among the working class these days. They don't need it anymore.
Until the robots take all of our jobs, only rich people can buy things, and everyone else has to fight over the scraps, that is

>>25047404
>Marginal utility understands that the value of labor is only as much as it costs to pay the laborers and only a fraction of the cost of sale is thus related to labor.

This is true irrespective of marginal utility. The value of labour is indeed what it costs to pay the labours. The argument here is that the value that labour creates is more than what is being paid. That's the source of Surplus Value.

>Labor is necessary for the product to exist, but so are a lot of things that make up the cost of production

Non-living things do not own money. Humans do. All non-living elements of the cost of production still end up directly or indirectly as labour costs down the line.

>The thing that determines the amount of an item sells for is the amount that the customer is willing to pay for it
That is just absurd

>>25046660
Time to book an appointment, anon.

>>25047455
>you admit that marginalism has no theory of profit?
It does. Did you not read what I said ? The profit theory under marginalism is : the investor is rewarded for his risk and time-preferences. However, over the long time, competition smoothes and evens-out profit.
Not that hard to understand desu. (and yes, I disagree with this because in my eyes profit is embedded in value, but that's another topic I'm not interested to discuss)

>>25047460
>That is just absurd
Are you that dense ? It's baffling to see how little people can be disconnected from reality. How do you think the investor determines how much to invest ? What do you think the production costs are relative to?

>>25046434
>British psyop infohazard to accelerate and end-run Prussian Socialism, because they could not compete demographically or in industrial innovation after hamstringing themselves with copyright/trademark publishing enforcement vs. free-for-all in Germany
>... and simultaneously gimp Continental Powers economically and Malthusianly

Bakunin's types criticism and suspicion were completely borne out, and the window dressing of 'scientism' barely conceals its bare ochlocratic state management of herd-humanity intentions. Lenin and Stalin and Mao are perfect expressions of its inevitable dead and deadly end.

>>25047494

Please don't embarrass yourself. I will try to explain it to you only once to see if it gets through.

1. The cost of production is independent of what the customers are willing to pay. I don't know what kind of ass backward cart before horse logic you have in your head that makes you believe otherwise.

2. Now the investor determines if that investment will bear him profit. Which means the customer must AT LEAST meet the cost of production.

3. If customers refuse or lowball then that means the labour done to create that thing is worthless because the effort is not valuable enough for society to be equivalently compensated.

Any customer can claim that they'd buy a fighter jet for a dollar. But a dollar won't feed and cloth and house all the workers involved in that process. A fighter jet Is expensive because the society/nation decides that all that work that goes into making one is worth the long and ardous effort. Which translates monetarily into them paying the full price for it.

4. If the customers meet the price or more, then that means customers/society do value that thing enough to deem all that labour worthwile enough for it to be exchanged with equivalent socially necesaary labour value represented as money.

The very fact that the commodity wouldn't exist if cost of production is not met already proved that customers DO NOT determine the cost of sale. Other wise everyone would be claiming a jet for a dollar.

As I said, absurd

>>25047565
Customers determine how much more than the cost of production the item sells for. Production determines the floor, the customer determines the ceiling.

>>25047465
An appointment for what? I have already found my salvation.

>>25047634
Your sex change surgery. You're a woman now chudette.

>>25046434
Klassen is better.

>>25047565
>1. [...]
Investment is done in regards to expected demand.

>2. Now the investor determines if that investment will bear him profit
You wouldn't be implying that demand sets the precedent for how much is produced would you ?

>3. If customers refuse or lowball then that means the labour done to create that thing is worthless
This rarely happens because ... demand drives the initial investment !!!

>le fighter jet
There's physical limits to it. But yes, demand for cheap jets has indeed produced ... cheap jets...

>4. If the customers meet the price or more
Again, you're agreeing with marginalism here.

>The very fact that the commodity wouldn't exist if cost of production is not met already proved that customers DO NOT determine the cost of sale
Jesus reread yourself. Of course there's limits to how much one can produce given a certain demand (i.e. hard constraints). Nonetheless, the production is determined in regards to the expected demand. It's demand that drives production for a given price, not the other way around.

>>25047494
>The profit theory under marginalism is : the investor is rewarded for his risk and time-preferences. However, over the long time, competition smoothes and evens-out profit.
which means that in the long-run, capitalist production is impossible, because there is no profit, thus there is no capitalist class which can live off it
what does it even mean to be rewarded for risk and time-preferences? 'time preferences', under perfect competition are not even a factor, they are cancelled out and 'for his risk' says nothing about the size of profit, but is only a moralizing justification of the capitalists' profit which, by the way, apparently is zero under perfect conditions, when he has no personal income

File: 1768503390713895.jpg (49 KB, 629x680)

49 KB JPG

>>25047651
No, thank you. I have a large penis and blow huge loads. I would never want to be a woman.