>>25543173
>he critiques modernity
marxism is literally the peak of modernism lmao i'm not reading the rest of that shit if it was supposed to be bait do better

I mean doesn't the quoted passage hold true as long as the "mine" or whatever enterprise is in question doesn't play into the calculation of the unit of account? Like today if a gold mine gets less productive, since money is not based on gold, gold price in fact does rise. Am I missing something? Is he specifically arguing that prices of commodities would fall as a result of contraction of the money supply, or is he just saying that the prices of other commodities would fall relative to the price of the commodity that the enterprise produces? Marx talks in circles a lot so I can't really tell. I only read Volume I btw.

>>25543183
"critique" can mean "provide a critical overview of". It doesn't necessarily mean "rail against". Marx was definitely trying to portray a critical overview of his times

>Not Real Communism
Demonstrating that Eastern Bloc regimes preserved wage labor, state money, and value-production is the precise proof that they merely nationalized capitalist exploitation under a state party.

>Soviet Collapse
The fall of the USSR proved the fatal contradiction of attempting a planned economy while retaining capitalist value-categories. No natural triumph of the market to find here.
Sorry pal.

>Human Capital
Defining human worth strictly by how profitably your life can be rented out to expand your owner's portfolio is simply confessing that you've accepted your own status as corporate inventory.

labor theory of value is something only an idiot could come up with, Marx can be swiftly disregarded as just another political cultist

>>25543241
refute it, coward

>>25543173 (OP)
>relative trivialities like 'capitalism accelerates because of competition', 'capitalist enterprises are pyramidal necessitating the reproduction of a relatively poor working class'
>and so on
Like the historically conditioned nature of capitalist production, the necessity of expansion into new markets, primitive accumulation, the material conditions of ideology, blablabla and so on.
>trivialities
I don't think you know what this word means.
>>25543183
Marx is critiquing liberalism, he reduces modernity to liberalism and is pointing to a future beyond modernity. If you think anyone who isn't a Thomist or a neoplatonist is a modernist then yes I suppose Marx is a modernist. If you can't understand how Marx's thought attacks the core of modernity's self-conception then you haven't read much of the relevant material.
>>25543226
This is controversial territory for leftists but imo the material conditions for true socialism were not there yet. Capitalism required a technological revolution to really get off the ground beginning in the period of simple manufacture but only really taking off with heavy industry. Whether AI can play this role I don't know. But in general rightists and people like you who parrot rightist propaganda want to talk about the failures of revolutionary socialist regimes and ignore Marx's criticisms of capitalism even though his criticism of capitalism is 95% of what he wrote and his conception of socialism is maybe 2%. Of course because you're a brain-dead /pol/tard all you need to know is "USSR fail" and there's Marx done for you. Marxism in general has only appealed to intellectuals, even among the working-class it was mostly self-taught intellectuals. Someone who can't read or think for themselves will not get into it because it is looking beneath appearances that retards take for granted.

To the OP the way forward is to look into what is really driving capitalism - "the consumer" and aggregate demand. Who is this "consumer", how do capitalistic structures feed back into the nature of this hypostasized Consumer? Keep doing what Marx did, drive the fight into enemy territory, bourgeois ideology.

>>25543249
bashing your head into a rock over and over is labor and doesn't produce value, the fact you asked me to refute that is an insult to the human race.

>>25543251
nigga, did you even read my post?

File: nischl.png (240 KB, 374x534)

240 KB PNG

>>25543241
>>25543256
>Smugly defeating some childish strawman
Pathetic.

Since basic political economy seems to exceed your grasp, let me break it down for dummies:
The Labor Theory of Value explains that under state-enforced private property, a commodity's value is determined solely by the socially necessary abstract labor time required to produce it.
Not by its practical utility or your personal feelings.
It remains relevant today because every modern corporation still operates on this exact mechanism:
Systematically extracting profit by minimizing labor costs while squeezing unpaid surplus labor out of its employees.

>bashing your head into a rock over and over is labor and doesn't produce value, the fact you asked me to refute that is an insult to the human race.
physical exertion ≠ socially necessary abstract labor.
Effort only creates value if it produces a use-value => a commodity that satisfies a social need validated through market exchange.
Head-bashing produces no use-value and fulfills no social demand you mongoloid.
It is not value-producing labor at all. You obviously lack basic literacy.

>>25543173
>I understand why Marx is based
lost me there

>>25543285
>physical exertion ≠ socially necessary abstract labor.
Lmao, so now physical exertion isn't labor, reality destroys your insane theories so you go so low as redefining words to meaning the opposite of reality, because there's no other way, communism is a joke in the 21st century.

I'll give you credit for giving one of the best defenses of Marx i've ever seen, but it still just utterly fails because Marxism is such a stupid anti-reality ideology that even the best mental gymnastics come out as blabbering word salads, the labor theory of value really is low hanging fruit that communists tend to avoid because Marx essentially just made it up (like most of his theories) to justify theft and violence.

File: 462937534.png (145 KB, 569x754)

145 KB PNG

>>25543382
Your insistence that physical exertion = economic labor leads to the conclusion that eg smashing your own furniture creates market value.
You are confusing physiology with political economy:
>Concrete biological exertion
=> calorie-burning, a physical fact during movement
>Abstract labor
=> specific social relation under state-enforced private property where private effort is validated on the market as a portion of society's total labor.

I'll take accusing me of redefining words because you cannot distinguish between sweating and commodity exchange as a public confession of your economic illiteracy.

>>25543285
>a commodity's value is determined solely by the socially necessary abstract labor time required to produce it
>physical exertion ≠ socially necessary abstract labor.
>Effort only creates value if it produces a use-value
Bruh. You just ultimately defined it as 'use-value' while staring by saying it isn't determined by 'practical utility'

>>25543285
>Systematically extracting profit by minimizing labor costs while squeezing unpaid surplus labor out of its employees.
Reducing labor costs is only one way to increase profit. You can also create a new product, discover a new market for an existing product, reduce other costs of production, get the state to give you a monopoly or regulation that hurts your competitors, etc. In general profits tend toward 0 because of competition, the price of the product tends to be the same as the price of its production. This is what Marx and Marxists don't understand. An ebil capitalist exploiting his laborer and producing his goods at the market price doesn't make any profit (unless you count management income as "profit" which it is not). The capitalists make profit by cornering markets in various ways and temporarily selling a commodity or service somewhat above what its hypothetical equilibrium price would be. In general it's facile to say "value = labor" and run with this tautology but what counts as useful labor and how 'intensive' or 'skilled' different labors are in proportion to one another is entirely determined (at base) by subjective demand and consumers bidding on the market. Marx is convinced there's an objective 'kernel' to capitalist production to be discovered by driving home the fundamental insights of classical economics re: labor value but the problem is there is no such kernel. Marxists online often say that Marx already understood subjective value because of socially necessary labor time but this is false, he saw prices as circling around the "true" labor-value price of the good (which includes obv. the reproduction of constant capital etc.), he consistently attacks any other explanation of prices, he tries to reduce most labor in society to unskilled labor and also thinks it can be "intensified" to account for higher prices, just reams of cope. Once you realize that the wage depends ultimately on the price of the product (along with supply of the particular labor, its comparability to jobs in other sectors, etc.), and that this depends on subjective bidding, a lot of Capital collapses. So tl;dr yes Marx and Marxists are right that there is something wrong with capitalist production but they are retards to cling to economic theories that are nearly 200 years old.

>>25543413
>Your insistence that physical exertion = economic labor leads to the conclusion that eg smashing your own furniture creates market value.
No, because labor alone doesn't necessarily create value ie your theory is wrong as i said, good strawman though, good attempt.

Honestly though your strawman is of a higher quality than 99% of communists, I could see the move you were trying to make, it was a good move but just ended up wrong because the theory is just wrong and illogical, join the dark side, smash that m*rx statue into dust and become an Ancap so you can finally have a coherent philosophical position and stop chasing your own tail endlessly in marxist theory and jargon.

>>25543251
>muh AI
>muh material conditions
More cope I'm afraid. You could go back to ancient Rome and describe capitalism to them and they could follow your logic just fine. You can't say the same for socialism - none of the schemes for a socialist economy make sense if you understand economics. A Marxist would accuse me of reading capitalist economic structures into both the past and future but I would counter that Marx understands capitalism in terms of crude pre-capitalist structures of exploitation. (Some of your labor is unpaid, the capitalist buys cigars and champagne and expands his factory, presto!) Really the situation is much darker than Marx or Marxists understand.

>>25543446
>ancap
>The market serves the Consumer, therefore the market satisfies society's Desire, therefore the market is objectively good
I'll criticize Marxism but I have respect for them. You guys are actually retarded. Though Austrian business cycle theory is interesting thoughbeit and weirdly has similarities with Marx's because of the role of credit and its ultimate grounding in 'real' conditions of production.

>>25543453
If you respect Marxists but not Libertarians you should question yourself, unless the respect is for their ability to mass slaughter, then I agree. Austrian economics is just non-dogmatic economics, everything is very simple and based on value, although most of us admit there are things people value that are not economic and therefore reduce our predictive powers, but this applies to all economics, I suppose you could include neo-classical in that too, I have to admit that Keynes was even more insane than Marx, and probably more relevant to the current batshit economic situation, although he was almost a continuation of him in many ways apart from the specific political ideology.

File: 345345.png (56 KB, 538x495)

56 KB PNG

>>25543420
>Use-Value vs. Value
You are committing a basic category error: possessing a use-value (practical utility) is merely the qualitative precondition for a product to enter commodity exchange at all, as no one buys useless items. However, utility does not measure or determine the quantitative magnitude of exchange value; that magnitude is determined strictly by the socially necessary abstract labor time required for its production.

>>25543432
The myth that competition drives profits to zero in equilibrium mistakes market price fluctuations for the origin of profit.
Capitalists do not generate class-wide profit by "cornering markets" or selling above value, as the capitalist class cannot enrich itself as a whole merely by buying and selling to itself at a markup.
Surplus value originates in production, where capital pays labor-power its reproduction cost (wage) while extracting unpaid surplus labor.

"Subjective demand" does not create economic value out of thin air; market prices fluctuate around prices of production based on solvency (effective demand), which is itself determined by the pre-existing class distribution of income between wages and capital.

Wages are not determined by consumer whims, but by the cost of reproducing labor-power under the structural coercion of the labor market.

>>25543446
Anarcho-capitalism is an incoherent ideology. It demands "free market" private property, money, and contract relations while pretending to abolish the state. Private property is a legal relationship of violent exclusion instituted and guaranteed by state power to separate the population from the means of life. Without a state monopoly on violence to enforce property titles and back the currency, market mechanisms cannot exist.

>>25543483
>Anarcho-capitalism is an incoherent ideology.
I notice you took the out and stopped defending the labor theory of value, kek! 1-0 to Ancaps.

File: erzhaupt.gif (2.79 MB, 516x400)

2.79 MB GIF

>>25543501
Distracting with value theory which I already explained to you is an evasion that leaves the structural self-contradiction of anarcho-capitalism completely untouched.
Capitalist private property and contract law exist solely through objective legal recognition and enforcement by a public power.
To demand absolute property rights while abolishing the State is an immanent self-contradiction.
It attempts to preserve a legal right while destroying the sole institutional foundation that distinguishes property from brute, arbitrary force (Faustrecht). Without the rational State, "anarcho-capitalism" does not produce a market but collapses into a regression.

>>25543483
There is no "capitalist class as a whole"; individual capitalists sell to other capitalists (higher order goods) or to consumers directly, the consumers themselves get their income mostly (under capitalism) by wages although you also have capitalists spending their own revenue, a smattering of independent producers, etc. I don't know why you think the "capitalist class" (which is not a meaningful category) has to "sell to itself" in order to make a profit. I think underlying this is an understanding of a finite and closed society in which wealth is not increasing but this is false even under orthodox Marxist theory.
>Surplus value originates in production, where capital pays labor-power its reproduction cost (wage) while extracting unpaid surplus labor.
Right, I've read Capital too anon. I gave a direct argument against it re: how prices do not really follow from labor per se and the only way to go from labor per se to socially necessary labor is productive utility but you're ignoring it.
>"Subjective demand" does not create economic value out of thin air;
Of course not. It causes people to part with wealth they already possess, in the form of money, such that the money they part with is greater than what the capitalist actually expended to create the product. Again there is lurking here an idea that there is a finite amount of 'wealth' in a society. Economic value is created by creating goods and services that people want. Capitalism sets up an infinite accumulation/generation of wealth, a process Marx himself at least partly understood and analyzed.
>market prices fluctuate around prices of production based on solvency (effective demand), which is itself determined by the pre-existing class distribution of income between wages and capital.
Demand is not determined by distribution of income. Again you're thinking in these broad, retarded (sorry), "cut-up-the-cake" categories. Demand certainly depends on income (a poor person can't buy whatever they want) but is ultimately subjective. You also divide total revenue between wages and capital but real capitalist societies are not evenly divided in this way. There are various sorts of skilled workers and unskilled workers whose interests sometimes align and sometimes do not across all sorts of metrics.
>Wages are not determined by consumer whims, but by the cost of reproducing labor-power under the structural coercion of the labor market.
Then why are many wages actually well below the cost of reproducing labor power? Working class women need government assistance to survive lmao. Also why are many wages for relatively unskilled jobs well ABOVE the cost of reproducing labor? "Well... they're... more skilled... or more intensive... or some shit..." No, this is cope. Good game, I had fun.

>>25543535
>Distracting with value theory
That was the whole topic of the debate and you abandoned it, you've lost, gg, Ancaps win again.

File: 7290743_-karl-marx-monume(...).png (35 KB, 200x180)

35 KB PNG

>>25543536
Impressive monument to economic illiteracy dude
Your argument is built entirely on confusing market appearance with economic substance.
I'll dismantle it for you.

>The capitalist class
is a precise structural position defined by the private ownership of the means of production and the command over propertyless wage labor.
Not a social club.
Capitalists as a whole cannot generate surplus value merely by selling commodities to one another at a markup, as that merely redistributes already existing wealth.
Nor can they enrich themselves by selling to their own workers, who can only spend the money capital previously paid them as wages
Profit (M - C - M') originates exclusively in production through the extraction of unpaid surplus labor.

>Productive utility and labor
You claim to have read Capital. Reading words without comprehending them is not an achievement.
Utility (use-value) is merely the qualitative precondition for a commodity to be exchangeable at all, not the quantitative measure of its value.
"Socially necessary labor time" is not determined by subjective "utility," but by the average productivity and labor time required across society under prevailing technical conditions, validated ex-post on the market.
Conflating utility with the magnitude of value is the oldest, most thoroughly discredited blunder of bourgeois pseudonomics.

>Subjective demand creating value
You confuse the realization of value in a price with its creation in production.
Subjective desire creates no money.
Money is the state-enforced, materialized representation of abstract social labor.
When a consumer parts with money, they exchange an existing equivalent of abstract labor for a commodity.
Wanting a product really hard does not print new value into existence.
It merely determines whether a pre-produced commodity successfully clears the market.

...

>>25543536
>>25543585
...

>Income Distribution and Demand
In a market economy, "demand" is not what people subjectively want, but solvency (= zahlungsfähige Nachfrage)
A starving person's subjective demand for food is economically zero on the market if they lack cash.

Solvency is strictly determined by class distribution:
Capital treats wages as a cost factor to be minimized, while appropriating the surplus.
Differentiating between skilled and unskilled workers does not abolish the class division.
Both remain propertyless sellers of labor-power dependent on capital's profit calculations.

>Wages Below Reproduction and State Welfare
Honestly your most embarrassing blunder, my man.
You think capital underpaying workers so severely that they need government assistance to survive is a refutation.
In fact it's proof of Marx' economic analysis.
Capital treats labor-power purely as an expense to be driven down relentlessly.
Left to itself, capital routinely slashes wages below the physical reproduction cost of labor, destroying its own human material.
It is precisely because capital ruins its own labor force that the capitalist state must step in, tax the national wage pool, and redistribute welfare to keep the working class alive and usable for further exploitation.

File: 623975492354.png (40 KB, 320x240)

40 KB PNG

>>25543543
>intellectual equivalent of a child knocking over the chessboard and declaring himself champion
No one abandoned value theory, son.
You were told that value is not created by subjective wishes, but by the state-enforced, violent exclusion of the population from the material means of life.

Your free acncap market cannot exist for five minutes without the very state coercion you claim to reject.
Cute.

Take a deep breath, touch grass, and come back when you're ready to discuss economy like an adult.

>>25543608
You stopped talking about the labor theory of value altogether, which was the subject of the debate, you lost lil commie bro, sorry no amount of rhetoric will save you now.

>>25543628
What do you wanna know about it?

File: 1789812677560134.png (327 KB, 712x780)

327 KB PNG

>>25543285
You really gotta feel bad for Marxists because they're shackled to antiquated theory like the labor theory of value (which is begging the question), surplus value (which is predicated on the labor theory of value), the industrial reserve army (even though revolutionary communism only took root in pre industrialized societies), and imperfect competition as a failure of capitalism (please read a book on business cycles).

It's like if free market people refused to adapt their ideas beyond Smith and Ricardo so they had to deny things like marginal utility theory.

Communists truly are the flat earthers of economics.

>>25543173
Read volume one on what value is.

>>25543630
You already dodged the issue by stopping talking about it and therefore conceding, I already know what the dimwitted theory is, you're just playing commie rhetoric games now, which don't work on Rothbard's strongest soldiers.

>>25543173
>he critiques modernity in its core
Not really. Marxism is just a more hedonistic version of liberalism. Some people say that he talks about how "capitalism" destroyed some traditional social formations, but he treats this as a good and progressive thing.

>>25543645
Nta but you really think this kind of infantile behavior is making a good case for your ideology?

>>25543220
Critique implies finding fault in something. Marx does not find faukt in mdoernity other than that it does not sufficiently gratify the desires of workers.

>>25543449
>Really the situation is much darker than Marx or Marxists understand.
How so?

File: 1345413535.jpg (36 KB, 538x360)

36 KB JPG

>>25543634
>Labor Theory of Value vs. Marginalism
Marginal utility takes pre-existing prices and money for granted to track subjective preferences.
It cannot explain what value actually is.
Marx’s LTV explains the objective social relation, abstract social labor under state-enforced private property, that makes commodities quantitatively exchangeable in the first place.

>Surplus Value
Class-wide profit does not spring from subjective desire or market tricks, but in production capital pays labor-power its reproduction cost while extracting unpaid surplus labor time.

>Industrial Reserve Army
Conflating IRA with the sociology of historical revolutions is a crude categorical error.
The reserve army is an immanent law of capital accumulation, rendering workers redundant through tech investment to discipline wages and slash unit labor costs.

>Crises vs. "Business Cycles"
Marx never blamed "imperfect competition" that's a liberal concept.
Crises are the necessary result of capital's normal, successful operation.
Relentlessly cutting unit labor costs to maximize profit systematically destroys the market solvency required to realize that value, resulting in overaccumulation.

>>25543634
>It's like if free market people refused to adapt their ideas beyond Smith
Trvke kek, communism is just an old boys club at this point, I think the collapse of the USSR was too devastating, to be fair it is hard to defend such a thing after that, so it's necessary for them to retreat out of reality to ancient dusty ideological tomes which have long since been refuted, it's just not very relevant anymore, the in thing is bland non ideological populist socialism with nothing more than "gibs me dat" as the founding theory.

>>25543653
Adhom, not an argument, I really couldn't give less of a shit if my style of argument annoys you, if obviously correct arguments annoy you, I'm glad they do.

>>25543671
you do you, bigboi

>>25543666
>the in thing is bland non ideological populist socialism with nothing more than "gibs me dat" as the founding theory.
I believe it is called "sectarian resource extraction," at least, in polsci literature on the mideast.

>>25543673
You too, as is your natural rights to voluntary free expression or however the Rothbard Mcnukes are launched etc.
I'm not an objectivist but I like Rand's aesthetics, Ancaps should be bold and unafraid to piss people off and poke at them, make them outraged, the truth is the truth and how people react to it is up to them.

File: 1788798912345139.png (1 MB, 1024x1024)

1 MB PNG

>>25543664
>Marx never blamed "imperfect competition"
He just said that factory owners (firms) will sell products for more than their component prices (wherein one component is socially necessary labor) and extract the surplus value (profits). Hmmm I wonder if there is a modern term for this LOL.

Buddy please read an economics book from the past century. You know that you can acknowledge that Marx made many contributions to economics (like in calling capitalism a dynamic evolving system which was a novel view at the time) while still realizing that his overall prophetic vision was wrong? Or have you made Marxism such a big part of your identity that it has become akin to a religious belief?

File: ioyk.png (389 KB, 550x550)

389 KB PNG

>>25543689
>I like Rand's aesthetics

>>25543173
Out of deference for your introductory statements I will qualify my explanation as such: you're overthinking this. I mean this literally, not in an insulting way.

The circuit is a standard production cycle, there really isn't anything special about it. M is the starting cash or money. C is commodities which can be further split into labor and means of production. P is production. M' is M+deltaM or what is sold on the market for ideally more money.

The gold clause, or exception, is only applicable because gold is already viewed as a universal form of money. If industrial applications are set aside then a gold mine is producing the universal basis, although to stay current the gold standard isn't used anymore. I suppose the exception may no longer apply but when Marx was writing M' for a gold mine included the following: variable capital (payroll), circulating capital (material costs like fuel, tools, etc), and surplus value. So the value of the gold being mined has to cover payroll, material expenses, and profit. So what happens when M' doesn't cover these for a gold mine?

There could be a natural explanation, something like the mine has been depleted. The mining company is likeliest to shut down and abandon the mine.

If the social value of gold increases relative to other commodities then for the purposes of the equation it takes more labor time to get the same amount of gold. If there is a wide enough spread drop in commodity prices while the value of the universal equivalent has risen then you need less gold to obtain the C in the equation for the next cycle.

That's it, that's the exception.

File: img-gaetano-2_142205777971.jpg (70 KB, 537x800)

70 KB JPG

>>25543708
Nta, but what's bad about it? Kitsch?

>>25543708
Does it annoy you that I like Rand's aesthetics but don't believe in objectivism? I bet it annoys you a lot more than the other way around kek. If I have a correct analysis of the anti-Randian personality type. Medium over message type shi

File: rad.png (320 KB, 592x328)

320 KB PNG

>>25543690
No need to frame this as a matter of faith or identity.
It’s just a technical misunderstanding of how Marx's value theory actually works versus modern markup models.

Here is the key distinction you're missing:
Marx assumes equal exchange, not markups.
He does not argue that capitalists make profits by selling goods above their value or component costs.
Selling above value is mere markup pricing (imperfect competition), which only redistributes existing value between buyers and sellers rather than explaining how the capitalist class as a whole generates net profit.

Surplus value is created in production, not exchange.
Commodities are sold at their value, and labor-power is purchased at its value.
The cost required to reproduce the worker.
Surplus value arises because the worker performs more labor time during the workday than the time required to reproduce the value of their wage.

Marx’s entire point was to demonstrate that even under conditions of perfect competition and equal exchange, the capital-relation systematically extracts unpaid surplus labor.

>>25543719
Essentially yes.
I'd call it slop even.

>>25543734
Better than brutalism

File: 61DNOktNYAL._AC_UF894,100(...).jpg (63 KB, 797x1000)

63 KB JPG

>>25543750
Filtered.

>>25543756
Ok i'll concede brutalism is pretty cool to look at for a day or 2 for it's dystopian aesthetic, but if i had to look at a commieblock every day of my life i'd probably be suicidal.

File: 673f7505defd4f797bc821fb_(...).jpg (111 KB, 1400x1196)

111 KB JPG

>>25543763
Yeah, I won't deny there are good reasons why commieblocks are generally unpopular.

However, I wouldn't really blame the architectural style for that.
Utilitarian architecture in itself is a pretty good idea, though.

File: ragebait-rage.gif (418 KB, 165x255)

418 KB GIF

>>25543727
Begging the question is a logical fallacy where an argument’s premises assume the truth of its conclusion, resulting in circular reasoning

>>25543777
I wasn't trying to ragebait you, my man.
Checked btw.

>>25543773
It's pretty clear to me that communism influenced commieblock design, there's that weird giant pyramid building in North Korea's Pyongyang that no one even lives in, it feels like subliminal psychological messaging.

File: tatlinstower.jpg (565 KB, 1165x1600)

565 KB JPG

>>25543786
>communism influenced commieblock design
I don't dispute that.

File: lolcommies2.jpg (104 KB, 540x410)

104 KB JPG

>>25543173
>Discuss
No.

>>25543249
One pays either what they are forced to or what they like. Everything else is fake.
>>25543285
>The Labor Theory of Value explains that under state-enforced private property, a commodity's value is determined solely by the socially necessary abstract labor time required to produce it.

"Is" here is very dubious. If this is what the state decides then of course, but if their whim is for us to drink camel piss we'd have to. The question then is what is rational? Rational is maximising utility, which means lowest cost (in money, time and resources) to create goods and services, that is the Slave Theory of Value. Now go my little troons, die and kill in my name!

File: pjimage-14.jpg (263 KB, 960x540)

263 KB JPG

>>25543824
>State Decree Strawman
The state does not "decree" value by legislative whim.
The state enforces private property.
The law of value then operates as an objective economic law governing exchange ratios through socially necessary abstract labor time, completely independent of government decrees or personal tastes.
Conflating utility with "lowest cost" is a fundamental category mistake.
Utility (use-value) is a qualitative property that satisfies a human need.
Cost minimization is the quantitative compulsion of capital to slash unit labor costs to maximize profit.
Marginal utility theory takes pre-existing prices and property relations for granted, tautologically declaring market coercion "rational".
The Labor Theory of Value is the scientific critique of how state-enforced private property structurally degrades living human labor into a cost factor to be systematically extracted for unpaid surplus value.

>>25543734
Ok. I am actually partial to Odd Nerdrum and think that Kitsch is much higher than emre epgemeral and trendy "art"

>>25543844
Nta but yes, I think it has a perennial quality which transcends the constant flux of different movements of art in history. I think Rand liked art deco which was popular at the time and synonymous with markets.

>>25543877
Indeed. When I think of Kitsch, I think of greek tragedy, the old masters. When I think of art, I think of toilets and period blood.

>>25543886
Kek, very true, Greek pillars never go out of style, it's unfortunate that most periods in art are very shallow but it's the nature of the game I suppose, so when something like art deco comes along it's a breath of fresh air, a new take on the old take instead of an old take on a new take, a shame it happened in such a vapid time period.

>>25543840
>through socially necessary abstract labor time
How does this enforce the exchange rate?

>>25543173
Marxists don't need arguments, but to be destroyed for their own good.

Marxists are taking some big L's itt. In their defense, however, the defenders that have stepped up are not the cream of the crop.

>>25543898
And for the good of everyone else.

>>25543173
To even treat Marxism as a serious treatise on politics and economics is to do it more justice than it deserves. This is not a school of intellectual thought, it is an emotional response, a religious movement. A secular cult for the postmodern world that has eschewed theology. Marxism can best be thought of as a rejection of life and its conditions. You might think that it's lofty claims of post-scarcity and post-class are materially, discreet goals that they are trying to achieve but they are not. These are merely illusive asymptotes, a term which is still grossly overgenerous because Marxists will never reach anything even close to it. And that is the religious element, this nebulous and forever unattainable state akin to nirvana or enlightenment, the existence of which is its very purpose which is to bind its adherents to the collective.

>>25543173
>>25543241
Anwar Shaik found a correlation of 0.97 between labour values and prices.

>>25543173
You didn't understand. He took two situations. One where only this particular mine is unproductive. One where the whole gold market is undervalued.
Average rate of profit is explained in volume 3.
Rate of profit is always an average. And basically, the profit of a particular company is the difference between it's cost of production and the average rate of profit. If a particular company has costs of production that are superior to the average rate of profit, it is unproductive.
Sure, if you try to understand LTV from a particular factory, a particular producer, it doesn't make any sense.

>>25544210
Well said anon. Brilliant text.
Other than that, could you please remind me the economic growth of the UK, Germany, Japan?
What are your personal projections for 2035?

>>25543251
>Marxism in general has only appealed to intellectuals, even among the working-class it was mostly self-taught intellectuals. Someone who can't read or think for themselves will not get into it because it is looking beneath appearances that retards take for granted
It may surprise you to discover this but most of the Working class is not intellectual, especially in economies with high social mobility (not so high nowadays but still better than in the Modern era). People with a functioning brain tend to either move up the class ladder or find a comfortable niche wherever they may sequester themselves from the world and pursue their respective fields of fancy in relative peace

Can someone explain marxism to me as a separate category from judeomarxism?

>>25544244
A correlation does not tell you the slope of the best fit line.

>>25544472
Read on the jewish question, from Karl Marx.
And then you'll understand that Marx is about the abolition of judaism.

>>25543173
How could I empathize with the working class when they're all retarded mongoloids who doomscroll tiktok at full volume in public spaces?

>>25544511
The thing about Karl Marx is not only about working class empathy. It's understanding that Capitalism has internal contradictions, which affect everybody, regardless of class attitude.

>>25544540
OK but I believe that the poor deserve to suffer and Capitalism is the best at making them suffer.

>>25543654
>Critique implies finding fault in something
wrong

>>25543251
90IQ post, you're an idiot my man.

Can someone explain why labour value being determined by wage price is deemed wrong by marxists? How else do they expect voluntary labour to be valued?

>>25544561
I don't think that they suffer that much. Yet. They are pretty happy with their bread and circus. Zoomers are a little less happy with the wage labor "arrangement". But they are still very, very far from wanting to flip the table.

>>25544597
It's not even about that anymore. It's about valorization not being possible anymore.

>>25544602
And why the hell is that a problem? People work for food not glory.

File: 56.jpg (17 KB, 640x360)

17 KB JPG

>Your revolution is over, Mr. Marx. Condolences. The commies lost! My advice is to do what your parents did: get some capital, sir! The commies will always lose! Do you hear me, Mr. Marx? THE COMMIES WILL ALWAYS LOSE!
What did he mean by this?

>>25544494
What does his beliefs have to do with tye material circumstances and the struggle of the working class. This type of equivocation is exemplary of the judeomarxist entanglement.

>>25544540
What system does not have any contradictions

>>25544745
Marxism

>>25544566
It does. If you only extol the good qualities of something and not the bad, it's not a critique.

>>25543251
>Capitalism required a technological revolution to really get off the ground beginning in the period of simple manufacture but only really taking off with heavy industry.
Capitalism has been through like five technological revolutions by now. I'm sure you know better than Marx when he said that Britain was "ripe for revolution," but I don't see why mainstream economists can't also know better than Marx or a random anon on 4chan

>>25543251
>If you think anyone who isn't a Thomist or a neoplatonist is a modernist then yes I suppose Marx is a modernist.
That's not even the point. Marxism is considered by every serious philosopher and marxist a modernist philosophy because it carries defining commitments of modernity and the enlightenment. It believes that history is developmental, that capitalism is historically necessary, that reality is entirely intelligible by secular rational explanations, that human beings can consciously reshape thwir social world (while, at the sane time, being shaped by them depending on whether a marxist thinks so) along with the fetishization of reshaping and explouting and lording over the natural world to gratify the endless and meaningless desires of human cattle (while also believing that only they can, somehow, live in "harmony" with it, though this is a more recent western development. The USSR famously drained the Aral lake for cotton production and introduced king crabs to the north atlantic, where they continue to muktiply faster than we can fish them and devour everything in their path and leave behind empty deserts).

>>25544561
Anon, you are the poor.
Unless you are a Großindustrieller, which I highly doubt. How many means of production do you have?

>>25545001
He could be "middle class." Also, oretty sure Marx makes a distinction between the functional capitalist and the non-functional one. The latter is still a capitalist though he doesn't literally "control" the means of production.

>>25545007
"Middle class" is still poor.
The onyl valid reason to defend capitalism would be to own at least one factory.

>>25543840
Stop avatar-fagging, you utter fucking tranny.

>>25544776
You haven‘t even explained what you mean by modernity. I did - liberalism, democracy, the emancipation of the individual, capitalism obv, etc, Marx opposes all of this and looks forward to a post-modern future which he himself sees as scarcely intelligible to us. Your post amounts to saying that people use the adjective “modern” to describe him. And I don’t know what the USSR has to do with anything, Marx did not live to see the failure of his ideas. It is typical of midwits to argue about nominal definitions. Beyond that it’s like I said - for you any philosopher after the 13th century qualifies as a “modernist”, even if he is criticizing the modern world.

>>25545012
>"Middle class" is still poor.
according to whom?

>>25544561
Based.

>>25545012
The middle classes have some reserves and are in a somewhat privileged position which they have an interest in maintaining unlike the proles who have nothing to lose and thus have zero interest in defending the current social order.

>>25543654
this
kant criticizes using your brain to think in his magnum opus for instance

>>25543173
most peoples thinking on value / price is flawed.

value is an imaginary substance. hes right about that. Price is a deliberate controlled bottleneck whose access is kept as far away as possible from the actual producers.

marx is still cool tho

>>25543654
thats not even a touch accurate. are you ok?

/lit/ is becoming class conscious, lol.

>>25547451
wait til it becomes cliterate

capitalism is so powerful that it can possibly even survive multiculturalism, the very last poison for society.

>>25547999
yes but can it withstand you gay posting?

Every day on /lit/ a new thread about Marx appears where some guy responds to himself with walls of text over an ideology that failed so spectacularly it made an entire corener of the planet unlivable, possibly forever.

>>25548368
cope

it turned half the planet to revolution and made the other half cringe in fear.

marx is better than jesus and they share the same goal.