>>521514 Eh, I get why people like him I just think he's been co-opted by students who merely look at his work as "Why people don't like what I like: The Book". I know I should like him, I just think it's been ruined by all the knobs parroting his ideas who've read maybe 2 chapters of him.
And yes I'm aware of the dickishness of dismissing a thinker based on their fans.
>>521500 I'd say that pretty much all communist thinkers are overrated. I'm honestly a little surprised that it's not on par with Nazism in terms of acceptability, considering the death toll of communist regimes.
>>521550 Because unlike Nazism, in which genocide/cuntishness is sorta needed, it's incredibly easy to distance an actual real-life state from theoretical principles set out by a people who often, never had any say in what happened in those states. Nazism/Fascism and communism still have very different legacies and relationships with 'the real world'.
>>522710 >Overrated, outdated, Agree. >compromised, Partially agree. >obsolete. Disagree. We still don't know were to move world economy. Capitalism works all right while there are resources and new large markets and our planet is running out of both.
>>521403 i agree, most of chomsky's theories do not hold up in the face of evidence from real languages (and i don't mean piraha). He was very influential and i do believe there is something to the idea that linguistic structures work hierarchically but he is definitely overrated in the field. many people have built careers out of theorizing within his framework though and they don't want to give all of that up so his ideas are bound to stay around for a long time. the thing is, chomskyan linguists are often very smart people so it's hard to argue against them, and they have the advantage on their side in claiming that their opponents are "just looking at the surface" and "not analysing deeply enough". but when it comes down to it their over-complicated constructs just don't line up with reality.
People, both on the left and the right, treat him as if he were a great conservative intellectual, specially to contrast his conservatism with the religious right, but really he was just another cuck hungry for respectability and willing to backstab his friends for that.
>>523760 Worker's movement didn't start with Marx. Many worker's movement completely abandoned or more or less ignored Marx. Sweden's Social Democrats have largely been the nations biggest party and they aren't Marxists in the slightest. There was some Marxists within them but they separate and formed their own party. Sweden's Social Democracy isn't "proper" socialism but "functional socialism"; socialism in and by itself isn't a goal or something good in itself so it's better to shape capitalism to be operational so that a capitalist society can reap all the benefits from a socialistic country.
>>524030 Krugman is such an attention whore. He pretty much pimps out his Nobel prize so he can get in the news, write columns, and soapbox about his feels. He thinks his name alone will make up for any actual research. A lefty version of 90's Milton Friedman.
>>522710 Yeah buddy I'd like to see you create a society where robots do everything without leaning heavily on some Marx and Engels. Arguably the future we are seeking is what they really thought would happen in the 20th century and were planning to stop anyway because it was a reaction to industrialism.
>>524300 Not all companies that hire minimum wage workers are all that terrified of a rising minimum wage, as long as the competition also has to see the same increases in costs. Of course, they'd rather pocket the money and act like it would ruin the economy.
>>525511 Not that guy, but, one issue I take up with Chomskyan approaches to things is that it starts getting overly complex with movement/transformations/etc. and IMO abstracts a little too far away from trying to model how grammar operates in the brain, and seems to be just a little too bound within itself to really try to model/explain what is going on.
>>525511 >Could you give me an example of how his theories don't hold up in the face of evidence?
Maybe Noam's moved on from the 1970s, but when Foucault asked him for a gedanken experiment that would make universal grammar (ie: human nature) a falsifiable proposition, Chomsky couldn't come up with one.
>>524307 Actually, I think the reason Australia worked so well then is a combination of White Australia Policy + its lack of a border, which would inherently bring in wage-depressng illegals in as large a speed as the US-Mexico border
>>526229 >Actually, I think the reason Australia worked so well then is a combination of White Australia Policy + its lack of a border, which would inherently bring in wage-depressng illegals in as large a speed as the US-Mexico border From 1945 to 1975 we imported masses of cheap labour.
I think you should really learn the "Australian settlement" thesis of Australian labour history, then read it's critics.
his ideas are actualy very interesting and move away from marxist dogmas of the time which almost got him killed by the soviets, he might be overrated in proportion to how relevant his thinking is today but realy his work is quite based
>>521403 Ehh... maybe overrated, but at least he is consistent to a fault. Although he does get fixated on tiny little historical injustices that he mentions again and again because he has them well researched to the point it becomes like using anecdotal evidence to generalize.
And I think there is something to natural language. The Yanomano's language evolved under the pressure of questioning - they began to distinguish between things they never had before in response to a new need for it in their environment now containing Westerners... and I think that supports Chomsky.
Then he talks a lot about areas outside of his expertise like all people in democratic nations and, surprise, it's not his area of expertise. But if one expects that...
>>530140 There is no necessary and direct connection between the value of a good and whether, or in what quantities, labor and other goods of higher order were applied to its production. A non-economic good (a quantity of timber in a virgin forest, for example) does not attain value for men since large quantities of labor or other economic goods were not applied to its production. Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value. In general, no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value, but considers solely the services that the good will render him and which he would have to forgo if he did not have it at his command...The quantities of labor or of other means of production applied to its production cannot, therefore, be the determining factor in the value of a good. Comparison of the value of a good with the value of the means of production employed in its production does, of course, show whether and to what extent its production, an act of past human activity, was appropriate or economic. But the quantities of goods employed in the production of a good have neither a necessary nor a directly determining influence on its value.
>>530304 >There is no necessary and direct connection between the value of a good and whether, or in what quantities, labor and other goods of higher order were applied to its production.
This doesn't answer the question regarding simple and complex labour, it is an assertion on another point.
>A non-economic good (a quantity of timber in a virgin forest, for example) does not attain value for men since large quantities of labor or other economic goods were not applied to its production.
As you'd know, had you read capital, trees in a virgin forest do not become timber until people in a society transform it through labour.
>Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value. Restatement of the first assertion.
>In general, no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value There's no need to, they confront the exchange value as a price
>but considers solely the services that the good will render him and which he would have to forgo if he did not have it at his command... You've copy pasted this from a 19th century text. You've also just confused use value and exchange value.
>The quantities of labor or of other means of production applied to its production cannot, therefore, be the determining factor in the value of a good. Does not follow.
You didn't answer the question about simple and complex labour.
You've not read Marx and you don't understand marxian LTV.
>>528420 Outside of an angsty high school English class, nobody should be hearing her name. Even full-on "I Stand with Rand" types know her brand of off-label libertarianism was a reactionary product of growing up in a Bolshevik hellhole.
>>530304 >no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value
>What are bespoken, luxury goods? >What are antiques? >What is memorabilia?
Consumption driven specifically with these concerns in mind--almost to the exclusion of the intrinsic value of the item itself--typifies bourgeois consumption in postindustrial capitalism. Classical Marxist theory tends to explain such issues more poorly than it explains the value of turnips and coal.
>>530373 >he's salty because he can't afford a bespoken suit >denies that he would buy an original print of "Birth of a Nation" if he had the money >totally would never buy a firearm from the personal collection of Ronnie Reagan given the chance and funds
Sorry bud, but not all of us shop at Wal-Mart for our day to day essentials of spray cheese and relaxed-fit jeans. Sorry capitalism isn't really going your way. Chin up.
>>530508 piraha is not a "controversy" in linguistics. virtually every linguist is aware of everett because he gets press, but they're also aware that 1) he is the ONLY source on piraha, and 2) even if his data were accurate it wouldn't disprove universal grammar.
here's an academic linguistics paper that includes a discussion of the subject, if you're interested in getting your information from a reputable source instead of from anonymous internet memes. http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~ycharles/papers/RecursiveMisrepresentationsLPY13.pdf
if you'd prefer something less reputable, take a look at this pop-sci 'debate' between everett and a dutch syntactician. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLrvfYVXakU
>>530535 Read Marx. Where the production of an instance of capitalism of a commodity exceeds the socially average necessary labour time, the commodity can only be realised at the average price reducing the rate of profit.
It is almost as if you HAVE NOT READ A SINGLE CHAPTER OF CAPITAL.
>>530535 Assuming the individual producing the good ia a nobody, I would agree. If he were someone of note and the piece in production were noteworthy for having been a long-discussed work in progress, things might be different. In a consumer culture, perception of value can become the key object of commerce, eclipsing the material item itself. Baudrillard's early work does a good treatment of this phenomenon, although I can't stand his later stuff.
>>530557 If this is the case, why is Chomsky so eager to bury his research and blackball him from fair, balanced discussions of his work?
Also, were his findings correct, aren't they categorically damning of universal grammar by definition? How can grammar be universal and valid if it admits even one exception to this rule? In real sciences, we call that the principle of falsification.
>>530562 you're not worth any more effort since you have done nothing to further the argument. Rather than understanding a rather valid criticism of LVT you shun it as "preposterous" because it does not agree with my perceived bias.
Anon, there is a reason why LVT is no longer considered Orthodox economic theory or actively used in modern economic thought. Although I disagree with New-Keynesian Economics because its gaping flaws are within its ability to spurn inflation and deflation via with its government spending to encourage consumption. It's actively taught and used because its major flaws are not blatantly off base.
See this is what I find interesting when it comes to objects of economics value. Entertainment pieces have a different level of subjective value that is outside those of base needs. Food, Water, Shelter ect. I'd say that when the individual creates a reputation they enter into a new level of economic marketability. Even then though, I cannot remember the artist name but the artist took a white canvas and painted three dots and called it "space." I might be getting it wrong. He sold the painting for an exuberant amount of money. Putting little Labor and making extreme amounts of money. I believe then that its Reputation is whats creating value for the art. Most likely earned via skill but reputation since some artists whom are very skilled sometimes make very simplistic work to turn an easy profit.
>>530721 Exactly. I think Baudrillard uses the example of fine cars. To establish semiotic value, it is assumed that a car that is built to a high standard and evokes elements of luxury unrelated to cars (wood accents reminiscent of fine furniture, good leather as in a good chair), it can command both objective and semiotic value in the marketplace.
What is odd is that, after some amount of time, the quality of the car may drop abysmally. The interior appointments may even be replaced with cheap synthetic knock-offs. Yet, there is such strong value invested in branding and the use of that branding to enforce social hierarchy that the material utility of the item is incidental to its ability to confer heightened social status and prestige for those who purchase it. As long as marketing and branding are masterfully handled, people will beat each other down for the opportunity to pay for cheaply built garbage. Why? Because economic activity is ultimately motivated by the fulfillment of perceived needs, one of the most powerful being the need for status.
This is why I see at least a level of respectability with the Austrian School of Economics. Austrian School. Through their theories of Praxiology (Although lacking in level of proper validation via statistical evidence, yet I do agree you cannot math the economy into success) and human action via axoms.
Baudrillard is definitely an interesting character. I am somewhat surprised I haven't heard much about him. Any recommended books or papers?
>>531072 >I'm just going to ad homonym because I cannot resort to any real form of thought
This is why I stopped trying against you.
You have a very flawed mental though process and no amount of proper and logical account of criticism upon that theory will ever change your bias.
You are on the same level crowd that believes in Altruism as the top level of ethics. I had a debate with an Altruist in my Philosophy 195 class back in the fall of 2014. His final reasoning was "Altruism can only be run by adults." Which in turn means "Anyone whose not an adult cannot believe in Altruism." Which is not only flawed because being "Adult" (As I caught onto it as meaning mature/maturity which he confirmed later) is a subjective value and can change from person to person.
Your ability to not understand Menger's criticism believing Marx answered his critic via his book because labor is required in all things needed to be done means you do not understand the critic.
Labor is a net loss. Not a profit. In Accounting its an expense. In Finance its a negative because it eats profit. In real Economics it does not produce value. From Chicago School to Keynesian to Austrian School to Neo-Classical.
I have accepted the fact that you are so deep in the Marxism pool that I cannot convince you otherwise.
>>531119 An ad hominem would be if I called attention to a feature of your character. For instance, if I said you were wrong because you are a marginalist, this would be an ad hominem. But I have not done this.
I have called attention to your ability to correctly express yourself in language and thought. It follows from your misrepresentation of marginalism, and of Marx, that on any point you are untrustworthy. Your spelling indicates that your sloppy attention to detail is general.
>>531145 Marginalism was not part of the original question.
You originally asked me to explain the difference between simple and complex labor. I instead choose not to answer that because you were going to lead into the point that "Labor is means of production." If I recall correctly Das Kapital Chapter 7.
As when ever someone argues with someone who agrees with LVT they always roll back to "Without labor you cannot produce." Which makes the theory on the whole vulnerable to Tautology. This is being that the more labor needed to be used to create an item the price of an item increase. Explaining prices by prices.
This as a whole does not mean that the item in question does not have an increased value. This is why a common retort is "Dig a hole in the middle of know where" is used. That hole has absolutely no value on its own. The labor is wasted. This is why Carl Menger said "Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value." The money spent to attain that diamond via labor does not matter to the value of the diamond. It will influence the price to attain a profit but its value does not change.
>>531207 >You originally asked me to explain the difference between simple and complex labor. I asked you to explain simple and complex labour, not because it leads to the point that labour is [one of the] means of production, but because it is a handy rapid shibboleth to determine if people have actually done reading into marxian LTV before they open this shit gob in public.
Instead you gave me two assertions, one demonstrably (and demonstrated) false argument about unappropriated elements of material reality, and a fantasia about non-commodities.
A tautology is a better grounds for future work than bare assertion, which you seem to have learnt from the teat of marginalism, because you act as if your appeals to authority reflect anything outside of the discipline of "economics." I am fine to accept the question begged when someone wants to conduct economic work, but you went further, you appealed to economics as a reflection of external reality without the least consciousness of its serious epistemological failures, chiefly, its taking of proxies as the thing represented by proxies. Your appeal to authority was illegitmate because you appealed not to the discipline's power to police its own academic boundaries, but to its social and political utility. You also confused the matter by critiquing acceptable political economy from a position of marginalist economics.
You do not have a sufficient mastery over political economic issues to debate the field. I suggest you retreat from here to >>>/biz/ where your field assumptions are relevant.
Carl Menger is not a marginalist. Specifically he is Austrian School.
>Instead you gave me two assertions, one demonstrably (and demonstrated) false argument about unappropriated elements of material reality, and a fantasia about non-commodities.
>because you act as if your appeals to authority reflect anything outside of the discipline of "economics."
Strawman because the discussion was on Economic theory. Specifically Labor Value Theory in my initial assurtion was LVT was wrong. Your bringing up of Marginalism has no relevance to the argument.
Carl Menger has one of the prominent criticisms of LVT which is why I brought it up. I would bring up Böhm-Bawerk as well but I do not have his book "Karl Marx and the Close of His System" readily available.
I have no such way abused Carl Menger's position because you are taking it into a direction where Carl Menger and myself have not gone into via the claim of marginalism. This is why I have repeatedly stated you do not understand the Critic and are making a fool of yourself.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.