I dont think every word and propisition he ever uttered is inherently wrong or bad, and he mostly just offered astute observations of dynamics rather than concrete non-vague prescriptions on what to do about it
Trevor from GTA V could probably play him in a movie.
>>84273687Hes too uppity even though he played NotTrevor in Breaking Bad 2
Theory vs application are two very different things. In theory, it works excellently. In application, it's one of the worst fucking things ever.
>>84273682He was working on the labor theory of value, which was used by other prominent economists before his time, but was extremely wrong. His theory is circular and reliant on an irrational basis.His "historical materialism" is kind of interesting, but it's a tool rather than a prescriptive idea. It sucks too, because it only works with decades of hindsight and it also ignores many factors, it ends up being a reductionist view of human interactions and thus inadequate.That's really all there is to it.
>>84273751>his theory is circularUnlike
>>84273687I don't think Trevor can grow a beard that big
>>84273760The problem with it being circular it's that it's unable to correct itself. The circle is destroyed by the labor theory of value being wrong, so everything else beckmes worthless. You can't close the circle anymore.
>>84273775The first few pages of Capital make all the sense you need to explain basics economics. It eventually becomes cheaper to make 1 coat instead of 5 shirts when you accumulate labour. Why is that wrong? Why do you think services are more profitable than basic industries? a complicated commodity is more profitable than a single unprofitable commodity of relative value, and after a certain point it can be made much easier if you have accumulated enough labour.
>>84273682It was a critique of capitalism, not intended to be a new system to fix things which retards took it for.Just more victims of vagueposting
>>84273702Any Critique of Communism Is Applicable to Capitalism
>>84273802Labor has nothing to do with value. Something is worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it. >a complicated commodity is more profitable than a single unprofitable commodity of relative valueThis makes no sense. All commodities are of relative value. Value isn't objective, it is only determined by group agreement and availability relative to want. >>84273900No. Capitalism works on a functional theory of value that adapts to human relativity. You are also mixing corporatism with capitalism. Capitalism has also not failed as bad as communism has and it's actually possible to implement, even if it has errors, it's still way better.
>>84273682Dialectics is so fucking funny because everything Hegel wrote sounds so mystical and uncomprehendableMarx was right because he predicted all of this while in the Victorian era when factories were taking off 200 years ago
>>84273908the value is what it costs to make the good anon, not what people are willing to pay for it. but the value form is an objective measure where some things will always be more expensive than others because of how much they cost to make. yes, someone can pay less or more, but in practical terms they will stay pay the value form of the good. a car will more or less always be more expensive than a shirt, but selling cars can still be profitable
>>84273938Hegel was a fucking schizo. He published a physics paper that was so fucking retarded, he was humiliated. I fucking German idealists. They just suck off Plato. I mean, I admire ideals and I think they are better than the alternative. But all of them seem like they are trying too hard to make God understandable or something. It annoys me that they all seem desperate to find certainty. Their ideals aren't practical, except for Kant's MAYBE as he does prescribe some action. I fucking hate Plato.
>>84273956Hegel sucks of Aristotle actually
>>84273947>the value is what it costs to make the good anon, not what people are willing to pay for itYeah, that's where you are wrong. This isn't true AT ALL. I already told you that value is whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Diamonds, for example, are some of the most common gems on earth, yet they are way more expensive than rarer gemstones, because of how society or individuals value them. Until you get that through your head, you won't understand capitalism. Labor has nothing to do with value. You can't even define "labor". What is labor? Is it effort? Is it complexity? Is it time? Is it a physics equation? Is it opportunity cost? Is it all of them combined? Labor, as all other things, has a relative value.
>>84273985what you are describing is called the price of the good. your diamond is a trivial human contingency and also excludes industrial use of diamonds.
he thinks that managerial/organizational positions have no value which is evidently false to anyone who's say, organized a birthday party beforewhich no commie ever has i know, nor have they read his book, or any book that wasn't smut
>>84273995>what you are describing is called the price of the goodThe price is a reflection of the value. Value isn't objective. Labor has a price as well, a value. Labor doesn't determine the value of something. A free market is based on the idea that anyone can trade anything for whatever they want, because value is relative to each individual. >and also excludes industrial use of diamonds.No, it doesn't. Because the abundance of diamonds more than makes up for this demand.
>>84274013value form is pretty objective though. a car needs to cost more than a shirt. if there is some kind of fetish value associated with the shirt it can be an exception, but the exception does not make the rule
>>84274020>a car needs to cost more than a shirt.Nothing necessitates this whatsoever. You think that it HAS to because it's harder to produce one than the other, but supply/demand takes care of the "need" that you are referring to, if cars were as cheap as shirts, there wouldn't be enough cars to satisfy the demand, thus the price increases. The subjective theory of value also takes into account the opportunity cost of the materials, the time, the work, the investment, etc. Value isn't objective at all. There is no such thing as objective value.
>>84274072What I'm saying is that selling cars can still be profitable because you can accumulate enough labor to outpace the the supply of shirts. If there was such a low supply because of the opportunity cost, the supply would be too low to be profitable. But there are still enough cars to meet the demand and keep them at a reasonable price, because it's possible to accumulate enough labour to make them competitive with shirts in this example. You need to ground market diversity somehow. If you say "well, no one is making cars so there's a lot of demand", you're basically pointing to a queer value at this point. But you're right I can't make a true $1000000 dollar car for example.
>>84273908>You are also mixing corporatism with capitalism."ReAl CaPiTaLiSm hAs NeVeER bEeN tRiEd!!!
>>84274106>If there was such a low supply because of the opportunity cost, the supply would be too low to be profitable.Supply isn't determined by opportunity cost in this example. I only mentioned it as ONE of the many factors driving the decision making. >the supply would be too low to be profitable.Profit isn't determined by supply, because labor doesn't determine value. Which is why you can charge 3 mil for a custom Pagani even when more labor went into making 10 BMWs worth 50k each. >But there are still enough cars to meet the demand and keep them at a reasonable price, because it's possible to accumulate enough labour to make them competitive with shirts in this exampleIn this example shirts aren't really competing with cars. Because, again, labor doesn't determine value. Comparing the labor it takes to manufacture a shirt to the labor it takes to manufacture a car isn't something of concern in my model, only in yours. You are also misunderstanding "profit", as you only see this as the nominal amount of money you get in exchange for a good/service - the nominal amount of money you used to manufacture it. The subjective theory of value focuses on how much wellbeing you get out of it. This is called utility and it describes pleasure, desire and satisfaction. Thus, "profit" isn't the only thing driving the decision. Even for investors, they want profit so they can do something with that money, they are seeking utility, and how they value that utility is relative to each individual.
>>84274142That's not what I said. You can argue that capitalism necessarily leads to corporativism, but I can argue that it's government intervention that does, which artificially restricts the entry of new competitors. I think that the critique of corporativism is a valid one, though. Capitalism works best in emergent markets, like a fertilizer that allows plant to grow. But ince the initial fighting and growth ends, the situation becomes stale and the winners usually just solidify their position into a permanent one. Criticism of this is complex as there are good and bad things about it. Simply put, it's not bad that a corporation with a good product dominated the market, it's the possibility gor abuses against the consumer that is most concerning.
>>84274191>Supply isn't determined by opportunity cost in this example. I only mentioned it as ONE of the many factors driving the decision making.Sure, but you still need to be able to accumulate enough value to make one enterprise more profitable than another. You also are claiming supply/demand determines everything, essentially. But there has to be the means to produce the supply at all in the first place, which requires capital accumulation more so in some cases than others. And yeah, I'm sure you know what follows from that even despite your opinion on subjective value. >Profit isn't determined by supply, because labor doesn't determine value. Which is why you can charge 3 mil for a custom Pagani even when more labor went into making 10 BMWs worth 50k each.Like I said, there are exceptions to the rule for fetishistic reasons, but exceptions do not make the rule, and you very well know that as a practical person. >In this example shirts aren't really competing with cars. Because, again, labor doesn't determine value.I can't tell if you are are talking about the Marxist model or the invisible hand model anymore, you seem to want to talk about both. In the free market people will supply whichever one is the most profitable, and one is always going to be marginally more profitable than the other but maybe not valued all that differently like you have said. So in some sense they are in competition from the supply perspective, but not the demand perspective where people need both. This is something a command economy is pragmatically meant to solve, that the free market doesn't.
>>84274237>gorMinor grammatical error therefore entire post invalid. Thanks for playing, tard.
>>84274248>people will supply whichever one is the most profitableNo. They will supply whichever gives them more utility. You still cant translate "labor" value into real value. >Like I said, there are exceptions to the rule for fetishistic reasons, but exceptions do not make the rule, and you very well know that as a practical personYour dismissal of this example as "fetishistic" is preventing you from getting the broader point. Value itself is what you call "fetishism" as it's subjective. >but not the demand perspective where people need bothNo, because people don't need both as much. And different people need them in different degrees. >command economyHere we go into the authoritarian model. A command economy necessarily reduces people's utility by taking away their agency over what they value. You still haven't dealt with the fact that value isn't objective. You are trying to pull me into a circle I'm outside of. I understand that you think that labor = value. But that doesn't mean anything and it's not observable in reality. As I said before, you can't define labor and you can't translate that into actual nominal quantities, and you can't take into account ALL the labor that goes into something, because you end up with an infinite set of factors for which you must determine the "labor" that was required, not to mention the costs that do NOT even involve labor. Things are as valuable as people are willing to pay for them. That simple sentence perfectly describes a complete economic theory of value, it includes everything from labor to materials to subjective preference and need.
>>84274309If supply and demand determines value, you need labor to supply the demandIf utility determines value, you need labor to supply the demandYou're well aware work only gets done if people work
>rather than concrete non-vague prescriptions on what to do about itWell that's the unfortunate thing: he did write a bunch of proscriptions of "what to do about it", such as mobilizing the proletariet in revolutionary action, seizing the "means of production", seizing and redistributing "wealth", complete top-down control of the economy, abolition of private property, and the establishment of a central bank with the power to issue currency and set rates. Many of these things have been implemented even in countries that are nominally "capitalist" and almost everyone suffers daily because of it. I guess the main thing that's insufferable about Marxists is that they think that anyone, let alone them, is smart enough or omniscient enough to competently micromanage an entire economy at any level. It's not physically or mentally possible for any number of bureaucrats to be anything more than a burden on the people they are attempting to administer. All the combined terahashes of all the supercomputers on Earth could not accurately model the economy of a small town with meaningful predictive power, let alone a nation. The hubris of people that think they can do it is amazing to me. The saddest thing is we desperately need a revolution, but a communist one would be like going from the frying pan into the fire.
>>84274350>If supply and demand determines value, you need labor to supply the demandSupply amd demand work together to determine price, not value. Value is what drives each person to make the decision to whether or not buy or produce that thing, this encompasses all values being discussed, the value of money, opportunity costs, cost of production, marginal utility, etc. You still can't define "labor" or how it translates to production lrices without appealing to the market's valuation, which is derived from the averaged subjective utility that each individual gets from that thing, contrasted with the requirements and expectations of the producer, and the general influences each person has on the collective culture.>You're well aware work only gets done if people workLabor isn't the only common element of things, utility is a way better descriptor, as it also encompasses natural resources AND labor itself. "Work" itself is also a commodity, with its own value. Marx relied on the average labor required to prodjce something a baseline to determine the value of that something, but the worth of that labor is relative to needs and wants of the individual, both the worker and the buyer.
>>84274453>Value is what drives each person to make the decision to whether or not buy or produce that thing>You still can't define "labor" or how it translates to production lricesbut originally you said labor doesn't explain value, not prices
>>84274453anyway anon, you know a lot more about this than i do so i won't waste any more of your time
>>84274469>not pricesI said that prices are a representation of the relative value. This encompasses many factors, labor only being one of them. You still need a value for labor itself. And you can't have any without appealing to market prices for that labor. Therefore labor doesn't represent value or prices. It's inadequate for both.
>>84274470No. It's difficult to argue against Marx because he constantly pulls you into that circle where his theory makes sense. It's breaking that circle, without being drawn into it that makes it really hard. Capital is way too long and I haven't read it. So it's interesting to argue with someone who knows about it. I know that the subjective theory of value was only developed after Marx died so he was working with old data. He also tried to argue specifically against it because he thought it was too messy to not have any objective grounding. Or that's what I've read.
>>84274512>also tried to argue specifically against it because he thought it was too messy to not have any objective grounding.He saw it as a failure of the system rather than the main natural component though. How can he argue against something that didn't exist? Because it wasn't technically articulated, but apparent in society. He saw this phenomenon as the expression of abuse rather than a natural thing. I think...
Oh boy, another commie thread!
>>84273956many modern practicing mathematicians are unironic platonists, yet we don't call them schizos for being so miserably wrong about the ontological status of the objects they study. you can give philosophers a pass for being bad at physics
>>84275939I don't hate Plato because of his ideas. His schizophrenia was interesting. I hate him because of the absolute grip he has over every aspect of society. He is fucking everywhere. And it pisses me off how he infiltrated other philosophies.
>>84275964Enjoy living in a republic, dorkwad.
>>84273682It was so easy to start a new religion in the 1800s
>>84273682YEA THE SURFACE LEVEL OBSERVATIONS OF "THE MORE LABOR YOU NEED THE MORE VALUE SOMETHING HAS" AND CENTRALIZED MONOPOLIES BEING BAD IS TRUE BUT HE WAS PRETTY OBVIOUSLY WRONG ABOUT A TON OF HIS PREDICTIONS FOR THE ECONOMY AND EVEN MORE WRONG ABOUT HOW 2 FIX ANYTHINGTHAT'S WHY THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO TAKE MARX SERIOUSLY ARE PPL WHO ONLY READ COMMIE SHIT AND NEVER READ OR LISTEN TO ANYTHING ELSE EVEREXAMPLE OF RETARD PINKO:>>84273947>the value is what it costs to make the good anon, not what people are willing to pay for it.MARX SAID EXCHANGE VALUE WAS DEFINED BY "SOCIALLY NECESSARY LABOR TIME" IF NOBODY WANTS SHIT THE SNLT IS ZERO AND IT'S WORTHLESSSO BASICALLY IT'S ALL DEFINED BY WHAT PPL WANTSO IT'S STILL LITERALLY SUBJECTIVE FAGGOT LABOR'S JUST A FACTOR OF PRODUCTION
