Why haven't you read it yet?

inb4 shitposting

File: smith.jpg (1MB, 1898x2028px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1898x2028px

same to u, bitch

>>7594895
>he literally thinks that the price/value of commodities can entirely be broken down into rent, profit, and wages
>he fucks up the only true advancement made by classic political economy--Quesnay
>can't distinguish between fixed capital, circulating capital, constant capital, and variable capital
>fails completely to account for constant capital in the reproduction of total social capital

>>7594890
I've read the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, Communist Manifesto, and German Ideology. I already agree with Marx. What more will I get out of reading Capital?

i have tho
its gud
>>7594929
actual political economy unlike those other works

I have. It's full of great sociological insight and terrible, terrible ideas about economics.

>>7594929
>Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts

I'm not one to make a sharp distinction between the young and the old Marx but if your idea of Marx's critical political economy is rooted in his early Feurbachian stuff, then you're gonna be terribly misguided.

The young Hegelians were idealists in their communism. Capital, and in particular money, were seen as alienated forms of human social activity. If humans could only subjectively realize this then they would be free. The Marx of Capital agrees to a certain extent--capital and money are alienated forms of human social activity but no amount of changes in subjectivity will get you beyond them. They are *necessarily* alienated, *necessarily* taken on the form of autonomously moving objects given their position within the structural whole of capitalist production.

Marx in Capital is rigorously moving from the essential logic of capitalism to its appearance on the surface of society.

Here's a good introduction to the mature Marx: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MklmkoV3REE

>>7594929
>What more will I get out of reading Capital?
Capital is the only place where one would truly get to understand Marx. It is where he employs his epistimological and sociological outlook that none of which are fully expressed in any of these writings. Neither the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts or the German Ideology where published in his lifetime, and most people have forgotten why the Communist Manifesto was influential in the first place.

>>7594951
Literally this. Marx just didnt know how to economics. Lol, i just know so much xD.

>>7594890
>tumblr filename
Like poetry

>>7594890
>buying Das Kapital
>supporting the evil capitalist corporation
Come on, shitelord. It's current year. Do you know how the capitalist system benefits off the sale of the book?

>>7594985
And due to the [1] at the end of it it's obvious he just randomly Googled marx's capital and copy pasted the first image he saw into the upload box. Nice try newfriend.

>>7594991
You mean all the people who would not get paid otherwise are getting money from my contribution and thus able to buy food and gas and pay bills? Sure sounds terrible.

>>7594970

I mean, it's true, innit?

>>7595012
Yes, Capitalists are being supported on your money, shitelord. While the workers of the world get screwed over. Do you even know that it's 2016?

>>7594890
I am neither a historian nor an economist.
ITT people think das kapital is about communism.

I lack the sufficient knowledge of Hegel to really understand it, and I'm too dumb to ever even try to understand Hegel.

>>7595033
It's fun to try mate. Tons of supplemental material out there as well.

>>7595033
you don't need to understand hegel to understand Marx. Yes, he gets his inspiration from Hegel but only in so far as the manner in which the arguments are constructed. The things he talks about are of a completely different nature. It's hard to read but there are loads of good lectures on youtube. David Harvey gives excelent ones to help you get through the thing

>>7595042
I have one of Hegel's books on my shelf. The thought of opening it fills.me with shame and fear.

>>7595048
Then maybe I could give it a go. I have some knowledge of his arguments already.

>>7594991
Just because someone adheres to communistic principles does not mean that they cannot submit and conform to the capitalistic society that bends us all to its will.

>>7594895
actually, both have a similar conclusion: working class is fucked

>>7594991
>current year
>not hanging the capitalists on the rope they sell you

>>7594890
Karl Marx was a bitch.

>>7595005
>reading comprehension
I'm implying that tumblrfags are Marxists.
Not that OP is a tumblrfag himself.

File: green_book_1.jpg (57KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 300x225px

>>7594890
>>7594895
Get BTFO

Oh, and it turns out we killed Gaddafi because he was going to sell oil for gold...
https://www.foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_DecWebClearedMeta/31-C1/DOC_0C05779612/C05779612.pdf
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/declassified-emails-reveal-natos-true-motive-topple-gaddafi-stop-creation-gold-backed-african-currency/#y5adaAlRc6wxuvsu.99

Boring.

>>7595159
yes, yes, we all know the meme. Marxists are more fun though desu.

>>7594890
I'm not interested on killing millions of innocent souls.

>>7594890
because I read for fun and I've come to know knowledge of politics will only bring me misery.

>>7595193
Go sheeps! If my fellow sheep says 'Behh' i put my fucking head in the sand and continue spending the rest of my life in my fapcave oblivious to the rest of the world! P.S. I love to know when Trumps next single comes out, i loved the first one

File: 1453025703168.jpg (146KB, 706x973px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 706x973px

>>7595193
>>7595318

>>7594929
You're done, now move on to Proudhon.

>>7594895
based adam smith and his welfare state

File: patrick bait.jpg (16KB, 308x308px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 308x308px

>>7595334
>now move on to Proudhon.

>>7594948
I'm mainly interested in philosophy; the nuances of economics put me to sleep desu

>>7594954
Thanks. But I think The German Ideology made clear the later Marx position you've indicated. I am on board with the fact that material conditions determine ideology, therefore people can't just 'think' differently to find freedom.
>rigorously moving from the essential logic of capitalism to its appearance on the surface of society.
sounds cool, but Capital is pretty thick and I kind of feel ready to jump into Freud and the Frankfurt school.

>>7594958
Neither the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts or the German Ideology where published in his lifetime
So?

>>7595334
>Proudhon
thanks, noted

File: shumpy.jpg (27KB, 412x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 412x600px

>>7594890
>>7594895

hello plebs!

Marx and Smith were hack philosophers who tried to hide behind "le economics". Marx's "economics", and observations of capitalism became redundant within his lifetime, and the application of Marxian economics has never worked.

Smith is equally a pleb choice. If you had posted Turgot that would've been okay.

What I really hate is when "philosophers" or politicians wander into economics with no idea what they're doing. They often think that they can impose their beliefs to produce a desired outcome. Most of the time these people are either socialists or the far-right, religious groups, fascists and the like.

Did Marx have a good grasp on economy?

>>7596937
upvoted

>>7596945
Is this a serious question?

File: 1447027323470.jpg (25KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x375px

>>7596937
>Marx's "economics", and observations of capitalism became redundant within his lifetime
>the application of Marxian economics

>>7596973
Yes

>>7596937
>Marx's critique is redundant
I didn't realize I woke up this morning in a world that abolished the value form, the wage system, and private ownership of the means of production.

>>7596977
There's a reason Marx is still haunting us, whether it's as a poltergeist or as a guardian angel.

>>7595121
The conclusion of Marx's works is quite the opposite: revolution is an inminent inevitable historical process. One of the not too many moments when Marxism was wrong.

Because I haven't read enough philosophy

File: 1986565.jpg (23KB, 316x475px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 316x475px

all you need right here famalam

marxism is gay as shit, weber had better sociology insights and p much anybody had better economics insights for example keynes

>>7596993
>The conclusion of Marx's works is quite the opposite: revolution is an inminent inevitable historical process. One of the not too many moments when Marxism was wrong.

marx totally misread the french revolution senpai just think about it for a few minutes and anyone can see why he made a bad mistake

>>7597003
this, Marx couldn't even write coherently

to be quite h about it, if the Jewish coup in Russia hadn't use Marx as some kind of state ideology to replace Christianity, he would just be another minor Ricardian no one remembers

>>7595163
So, where can I find the Green book then? Me and some fellow communists have been looking for a copy forever, and can't find it.

>>7595163
and plz remember pham that hillary klinton was the architect of gaddafis murder

>>7597021
kj as asdfj k asdfe it, wf ohw Wq[wpc ciew qo Riwwkz qpeo'r wic Cwad

File: 41DmJtOy2tL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg (12KB, 219x346px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 219x346px

Why haven't you read it yet?

>>7597114
I read Makiw's books

>>7595019
Nah, g.

>>7595026
Its critiquing capitalism with socialism in mind as he alternarive, r u dum?.

>>7597011
This, lol.

>>7597165
This, lmao

File: 51yFz-SOw6L._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg (49KB, 328x499px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 328x499px

Don't forget about me either...

>>7597168
This.
XD

>>7595186
Good to hear you're against capitalism.

>>7596993
Marx's conclusion was that capitalism's inherent logic would lead to its own fracturing. He didn't predict social democracy or Keynes, but he wasn't trying to predict anything exactly. He merely exposed the structural flaws of capitalism, and that, the central point of his work, has yet to be proved wrong.

>>7594890
Because I'm not a retard.

>>7597157
Ya.

>>7597241
Reddit is that way.

>>7597281
>He merely exposed the structural flaws of capitalism, and that, the central point of his work, has yet to be proved wrong.

make a falsifiable marxist statement we'll see if it's wrong or not

haha faggot i'm listening to a audiobook of wealth of nations with a patrish voice reader and vinyl crackling in the background for extra comfy and you can't do shit about it

>>7597078
I'd rather have a century of Trump than 1 day of president Hillary

>>7597369
wanna see the first female president watch the counter to the state of the union by nikki halley

>>7594890
Because free market economics objectively make life better and works

>>7597398
It's almost like you've never read Marx...

>>7597432
It's almost like he lives in the real world and not his mom's basement...

>>7597460
i used to have tons of marx and lenin shit but i dumped it all, i only kept a copy of tucker's marx and engles reader, which is a carefully curated collection of shit that isn't totally wrong

>>7597398

What's the difference between socialism and free market economics?

Socialism is real.

>labour theory of value
Thanks, but no, thanks.

>>7597472
actually after wasting years of my life as a marxist the only "insight" that i have kept from those days of undergrad foolery is that all wealth creation comes from human labor...the prices of commodities move around but real wealth can only come from a human doing work

>>7597398
For few people. Entire countries have been ruined by free market, and protectionism made the UK and America great. Liberalism is a meem that should die already

>>7597482
>Entire countries
lmao inb4 2007 crisis was a neoliberal crisis

>>7597479
You are lost in a desert without water for for two days. I offer you two products: a glass of water I just got from the sink and a diamond I have spent years perfecting. Which one would you be willing to pay more for?
Value is subjective. It has nothing to do with labour.

>>7597482
protectionism has been btfo too many times to count, and it's not even a marxist argument, you seem stupid

File: image.jpg (35KB, 472x311px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 472x311px

>>7597482
Nice meme

A few reasons, I have no interest in economics/absolute politics, It's kind of out dated and >muh communuuzum

>>7597506
are you really trying to trick me with that or just dumb? if there is a free economy where i can do as i please then i will just go get my own water from the sink, the amount of labor in it is so small i can just do it myself

>>7597506
How about I beat your ass, pussy

>>7597508
I never claimed it to be Marxist.

>>7597482
Protectionism, like social democratic interventionism, is just this crazy phase capitalism goes through when it's not feeling very well. You can't distinguish it from "free market" capitalism when both are part of the same process of the waxing and waning of capitalism's inherently destructive tendencies.

>>7597521
I got it from my own sink and I won't let you use it. Your only choice is to buy it from me.

>>7597511
>developed countries have free market
Well duh.

>>7597301
Reddit has the largest ancap community anywhere on the internet, and although no ideology is very patrician, communism has a significantly larger literary tradition than any competing ideology

File: image.jpg (2MB, 2559x1690px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2559x1690px

>>7597511
Better image

>>7597521
>Doesn't understand how thought experiments work.

>Thinks it must be other people who are dumb.

There's no trick you retard, the point is that the value is relative to demand. This is the first thing anyone learns about economics. Jesus christ.

>>7597538
>I got it from my own sink and I won't let you use it. Your only choice is to buy it from me.

that sounds more like communism than a free market to me buddy, luckily i live in america not a stalinist desert, so i can go to the store and buy 20 different brands of water, have a nice day

>>7597539
Chile has the freest market in South America. Coincidentally, it became the most developed and stable nation in the continet after adopting liberal economic policies. The same thing happened with numerous other countries.

>>7597549
So you agree that value does not come from labour, then?

>>7597560
wealth comes from labor, wealth is not the same as price

>>7597560
also, think about the labor required to defend a desert well from invaders, consider the labor required to build it, etc. turns out desert wells require a lot of labor! uh oh, looks like you're a fucking faggot

>>7597573
I don't think you understand what the labour theory of value is, mate.

>>7597556
Argentina has a better HDI and more social mobility, free higher education and so on.
The foreign capitals that extract the Chilean copper make enormous profits and all of it goes away

File: Screenshot_2016-01-18-09-54-34.png (429KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 720x1280px

I'm an Indonesian, I can't english pretty well, I read recognitions and infinite jest alright, I can blend in literature? I am here hagag so tell me, am I lit yet? What to go from here? Btw I use colordict too hahag, I heard winds today in the morning rushing toward long and short stems mesmerized by the hauling green leaves whose sheer of rustling nearly beating the air in its coloring paradox of greens, sometimes brown but not wither, so tell me, am I lit yet? Haghsg

>>7597556

You don't think that Chile's relationship with the United States may be a reason for its economic success?

Nah, I'm sure it's entirely down to their economic policies. Obviously.

>>7597582
i'm not talking about The Labor Theory of Value (tm) I'm talking about the fact that all wealth comes from human labor...

I absolutely love the point Zizek made about "free market" fundamentalists in this day and age. It's trivial, but amusing - that the people who now insist that it's not free market economics' fault that the world is how it is today, who are convinced we just need a "more free market" to make things work out, are basically in the same contradictory position as those communists who chant "communism has never been tried!".

>>7597592
what? really? you mean free trade helps your economy? well shit what a radical idea!

>>7597586
Argentina has higher inflation, unemployment, taxes, people who depend on government welfare, price controls and data censorship. It has also recently defaulted on its debts.

>>7597595
the problem with people, and this goes back to the beginning of people, is thinking there is something wrong with the world and that it is someone or something's fault. if you want something, do work until you have it, or don't. there's nothing wrong with the world. the truth is this is the best of all possible worlds.

>>7597594
Why are you talking about that, given that my comment was about the LTV?

>>7597593
You're attacking a very fragile strawman. From Marx to Lenin to today's Chinese communists, admiration for and recognition of the successes of capitalism - emulation of those successes, even - has never been absent from communist thought. Marx himself played the stock market and mooched off of Engels' dirty capitalist money.

>>7597607
I didn't say anything about the "LTV", you brought it up

>>7597595
Free market has been tried and it does work. See:
>>7597545

>>7597608
dude, just face the reality that marxism-leninism was a reactionary ideology that tried to create a kind of "industrial feudalism", luckily it failed. move the fuck on.

>>7597614
I have moved on. I think that Lenin had a lot of useful things to say and also made a lot of mistakes. "Industrial feudalism" is completely the wrong term for the Soviet experiment - likely derived from the fallacy-ridden "new class" argument pioneered by Dilas - but I also don't believe there's much to be gained in pining for that same experiment, whatever you call it. I just don't like this kind of ignorant strawmanning.

>>7597592
>economic policies
Mostly, yes. Nearly all South American countries in the 1970s and 1980s had good relations with the US. Chile was the only one to pursue liberal policies.

>>7597598

Are you really that naive, or are you just being dense on purpose?

I'm not talking about free trade, I'm saying that Chile is in a favourable position because it is a close ally of the United States. Consequently American companies are encouraged to set up businesses there. Think of it as the opposite of a trade embargo.

>>7597611
How did it work to those centroamerican countries that were under the wing of the US for now one hundred years, that always had a US backed coup whenever a nationalist/socialist/communist government got into power?
They are shitholes. The most violent countries in the world today are the product of a hundred years of liberalism

>>7597627
wow you mean having good relations with the best economy in the world is good for your own economy? but i thought the united states was an imperialist exploiter! by marxism cuba should be rich as fuck and chile a shithole filled with prositutes and crumbling buildings yet the opposite is true, hmmmm....

>>7597624
You're really dumb, man. Chile was the only one that had its elected communist government overthrown in a coup specifically engineered by the US to discredit the idea of elected communism (that's not even conspiracy theory stuff, there's plenty of evidence). Do you really think the US would let their shiny new ally fall apart after that? It's like Japan after World War Two.

>>7597632
Having good relation with the US doesn't mean that they had economic liberalism. Those countries have always had big and bossy, yet weak governments, which is the main reason for their failures.

>>7597637
I'm South American. My country was also under a military regime during the second half of the 20th century. The coups, which happened in numerous south american nations, all targeted socialist political leaders. All countries had good relations with the US during that period, but Chile was the only one to go through with liberal reforms.

>>7597640
They had economic liberalism. Companies from the US were free to pay as much as they wanted to the labourers, paid little taxes, were able to export however they wanted, to set their own ports etc.
Take a look at the history of the greatest fruit company (can't remember its name currently)

>>7597633
Chile is one of the countries with the greatest inequality in the world. Look it up

>>7597632
lol u dont know shit what u're talking about
America has never been liberal outside of US and Canada
and chile

>>7597655
you'll find the root of Chile's success in it's lower than average (for latin america) amount of catholicism...the most corrupt and crime and violence ridden shitholes in latin america are also the most catholic, catholicism and corruption go hand in hand like italians and the mafia....

>>7597655
Argentina had liberal reforms. Martinez de Hoz and so on. Later Menem kept with those policies until everything went to shit on 01'. Chile wasn't the only country to have liberal reforms. I dare say most countries had them

>>7597633

The US is most likely investing in Chile and encouraging companies to go there to suit its political ends. The fact that it's a free market economy is at best, a means to an end. And if relations between the US and Chile were bad, their liberal economic policies would not save them.

>>7597655
Chile was also the posterboy, the most famous example. Chile was the playground given to Friedman and his hacks. It couldn't afford to fail. Come on, you don't really think the US allowed all that to happen out of the good of its heart, do you? It wanted to fuck over the commies. Again, just like Japan. If the US wants an example of the glories of capitalism, it damn well makes one.

>>7597657
>inequality
Do you mean income inequality?
Who cares about that? It doesn't make a difference.
Did you know that Sweden has one of the largest concentrations of wealth in the world?

>>7597657
Singapore has some of the highest inequality in the world too, but i'd rather live there than some more "equal" place, what the fuck is your point?

>>7597656
Companies working together with governments is not economic liberalism.

>>7597667
>Again, just like Japan. If the US wants an example of the glories of capitalism, it damn well makes one.

this argument that america some how "made" japan is retarded, considering japan was already a heavily industrialized imperial power long before the war or else they wouldn't have even been a challenge for us in the war

>>7597668
Welp. You are retarded.
A system that impoverishes the poor and enriches the rich is good according to you? If so them there is no debate. Liberalism is great then

>>7597678
america has high inequality but i'd rather be poor in america than "equal" in cuba, what the fuck is your point again?

>>7597663
During the 1980s it was. The 1990s were a completely different thing. Still those reforms worked in the long run. You have no idea how bad things were before them. They brought stability, low inflation and credibility and reduced government bureaucracy and inefficiency. Unfortunately, we are now moving back to unstable times thanks to the current leftist governments. Argentina is lucky to have finally freed itself.

>>7597678
Thats not what he said.
>>7597667
Yeah, thats why Argentina is looking good 1 month after Macri got in and Colombia improvements over the last decade started with neoliberalism, go fuck yourself, thats intelectual dishonesty

>>7597663
Brazil had none, Argentina's one's werent signficant, also, a liberal economy doesnt work if people arent actually free, after Pinochet left the goverment is when Chile started seeing changes.

>>7597678
Inequality doesn't mean that the poor are getting poorer. Everyone prospers, but some faster than others. What's the problem with that?

>>7597676

Nuclear bombs can make leave rather a lot of mess though.

>>7597686
Would to be poor in Chile? That entails being some Indian that gets the shits from drinking well water, having no education, not enough money to pay your kids education and so on; or would you be an average citizen in other bumfuck country, where at least you have healthcare and free education?
Would you like to live in a country where there are giant masses of extremely poor and ignorant people willing to do anything for shit amount of money, people that follow populist politicians that fuck them over in order to make the rich richer?

>>7597718
>That entails being some Indian that gets the shits from drinking well water, having no education, not enough money to pay your kids education

so that indian is doing the same thing it was doing before capitalism or contact with europe, so what? no one "made" indians poor, they just stayed the same while hard working whites prospered by the will of god

>>7597734
This is not your containment board
>>7597695
So you be sayin, that if you give big capitals the freedom to pay slave wages and shit amount of taxes to some brown people third world country, they will refuse to do so? Or that if they do so, somehow the workers will prosper?

>>7597695
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

File: image.jpg (917KB, 2624x1535px) Image search: [Google]

917KB, 2624x1535px

What's up guys?

>>7598153
How is that Adorno book?

>>7598153
dude communism lmao

File: 1445558912099.jpg (13KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x300px

>>7598153

why do you all let your minds be cuckolded by a man that died long ago that probably would have thought you were disgusting if he met you

>>7598159
Read Adorno's preface and the final aphorism. It's an interesting way of working out a sort of inverted Marxist critique of value. Rather than work at the level of structural, conceptual moments of capitalist production and delineate the contradictions, necessary moments, etc. into a social totality represented at a high level of abstraction, he works out what amounts to a critique of value situated from the level of subjectivity, from the perspective of a fragmented view on the fragmentation of human social activity.

It's a mixed bag really, but as a whole it works. If you're not well versed in philosophical Marxism and the critique of political Marxism it may just come across as some old dude saying everything about anything is awful.

>>7598193
>If you're not well versed in philosophical Marxism and the critique of political Marxism it may just come across as some old dude saying everything about anything is awful.
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about. I've just been told that my taste is similar to his.

>>7598204
*critique of political economy*--correction

It can be read in fragmentary fashion. Just read the last aphorism to get Adorno's justification for his negation and the preface for insight into his method and motivation.

>I've just been told that my taste is similar to his.

That's not really a positive comment to make regarding someone...

File: Dfw.png (352KB, 599x837px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 599x837px

>>7598153

>>7598212
>That's not really a positive comment to make regarding someone...
I think he said it because of my fondness for Schoenberg and my distaste for jazz.

>>7594890

Because economics are not just a terrible bore (this is forgivable, easily) but also completely inapplicable in the real world, the most shit-tier of all sciences, and no better than witchcraft.

>muh invisible hands
>muh utter lack of predictive power

>>7597343
>make a falsifiable marxist statement we'll see if it's wrong or not
I always laugh when Austrian economists/libertarians say this shit because their own philosophies aren't falsifiable either.

>>7597676
>Japan
>heavily industrialised long before the war

Get a load of this guy! Also you don't think the Americans occupying Japan, creating an artificial ruling party out of pre-war industrialist families and anti-communists, shutting out leftists and communists intentionally, and allowing a society of exploitation so extreme "death from overwork" is an actual thing to continue despite having the power to stop it constitutes "making" current Japan?

>>7597543
>Communism
>Patrician
To be 14 again

File: 1453025681000.jpg (21KB, 500x377px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x377px

>>7597543
>larger literary tradition
Left
>Marx
>Bunin
Right
>Socrates
>Plato
>Confucius
>literally most of the western canon

>>7597657
So?

>>7598153
Pretty sure if you typed R in the address bar, you'll get Reddit, you should go there.

File: 1448127857589.png (332KB, 413x761px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 413x761px

>>7594890
I'm reading it right now comrade.

>>7598185
because he is right about everything and some of us are not too braindead to imagine a better world

>>7598393
As at least one other person has pointed out, Reddit is more ancap and lolbertarian than commie. It's actually closer to 4chan politically, on the whole, than anywhere else online; 4chan just dresses up its contrarianism as the prerogative of some kind of intellectual elite rather than the resentful howl of the twenty-something it actually is.

>>7598419
Tbf it is the contrarianism of intellectuals. Staying in the center is always the best idea.

File: trump.png (750KB, 865x652px) Image search: [Google]

750KB, 865x652px

>>7598422
I don't doubt the existence of genuine intellectuals on /lit/ (not me, I just write erotic fiction and like arguing about gommunism). But for the most part the politics of 4chan in general stem from a very unintellectual contarianism, a defining-yourself-against-others mentality that leads to the hilarious spectacle of "reactionaries" in their early twenties, young men who believe a hundred percent in liberal capitalism except for the parts that the modern (no less feeble, I must add) protest left supports, whatever they may be. This, of course, is the exact mirror of the protest left, which loathes the protest right. The majority of 4channers - and the majority of posts in this thread - fall within that sad, stupid dichotomy.

>>7598422
Funny, this is the position that most orthodox Marxists take.

>>7598153
>useless theory
have fun with your flights of fancy

to big

>>7598431
But Marxism isn't a negotiation between the two sides. It's as one sided as Fascism.

>>7597001
But Sowell never falls into the swamp of idealism. He observes that highlands tends to be underdeveloped and violent areas, because it takes modern infrastructure to break the isolation.

And the populace isn't dumb. They do what's rational given their circumstances.

>>7598153

>this person isn't dying of starvation

how?

File: 4602.jpg (463KB, 1920x1152px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 1920x1152px

>>7598453
>he hasn't paid any attention to the best Marxists in the world!

>>7597769
The "shit" wages you talk about are better than the ones they previously received, otherwise they wouldn't choose to work in your company.
Take China as an example. Thanks to foreign companies that outsource labour, the chinese don't have to work on farms and not know if they will have anything to eat the next day. They wouldn't have chosen to work at those factories if it wasn't beneficial to them. And do you know what the best part is? Those "slave" wages lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, better than any other government social programme. Sure, there some chinese people got richer than others, but society in general benefited from the free-market reform implemented in China.

>>7598542
This is very true. For developing countries, the free (or semi-free, in China's case) market is a necessary step to modernisation. But what about the stagnation, alienation and indifference displayed in already-developed countries? When everyone from China to darkest Africa is 'developed', how will the world work?

>>7598562
I'd also like to add that when talking about China, we have to remember that the reason it's so much less of a shithole than India, for example, is because of the extreme level of state involvement in the economy. So this is not a black and white "market good/state bad" argument. Ignoring that kind of dogmatism, and its opposing pro-state anti-market lefty equivalent, is why China is so successful today.

>>7598562
Capital will move where it can get higher revenues while paying minimal costs. If a country offers those things more than the others, that is where capital will move to.
For example: if, in a world where everyone is developed, Italy, for some unknown reason, gives more incentives for shoes to be produced than the other countries, investors from all over the world will see it as an opportunity and decide to install their industries there.

>>7594951
whats so terrible about it?

>>7598579
Another example would be if there were a recession in Italy. Costs go down, opportunity goes up.

>>7598582
Where to begin? The most obvious one is probably the labour theory of value. Then you have all the predictions that didn't come true, the now-known to be inefficient centralised planning, foreign trade becomes necessary... The list goes on.

>>7598571
China received a larger influx of foreign capital exaclt because it had less state intervention in the economy than India. The chinese government let companies do what they wanted, as long as they payed minimal taxes. That does not happen in India, where bureaucracy, taxes, corruption and legislations make it a less desirable country to settle a company in.

>>7598389
>Greeks
>left right dichotomy
eat shit and die

>>7598595
And I didn't mean state intervention in the economy in general. I meant in the specific cases of dealing with foreign investors. It still interferes a lot with spending, controls...

>>7598579
But who makes the things China makes now? India? What about when India is developed too? If capitalism can truly, by itself, lead to a developed and prosperous standard of living, then that leaves no one left to be exploited, and therefore no foundation for its existence.
>>7598595
>>7598597
Basically, the Chinese let foreigners into the economy in order to use them.. It kept foreigners away from the "commanding heights". This is why China is, to some western commentators, cheating at capitalism.

>>7598598
>But who makes the things China makes now? India? What about when India is developed too?
Example:
Everyone is developed. Italy goes into recession. People ger laid off, factories close, etc...
Foreign investors notice that people are willing to work for less. They open their factories inside the country and hire the unemployed, who, in turn, think it is better to work as a shoemaker in a factory floor (provided that complete mechanisation is not a thing) than to not have a job at all.

>>7598640
So the exploitation continues forever? We just shunt human suffering around the globe until the sun burns out? That sounds more like a dystopia than anything else to me.

>>7598642
>So the exploitation continues forever?
If you consider having a job as exploitation, yes. To many people, it is more like a blessing, though.

>>7598659
Cont.
What exactly did you expect would happen?

>>7598659
>>7598663
A job is a blessing to, say, a Chinese farmer, because of the leap ahead it represents. But a job, to an Italian or an Englishman or American, is nothing more than what you do. Your proposed future is one where people are grateful for work and nothing more, is that correct? Why should anyone want to live there?

>>7598673
So you want people to not work at all to survive? Is that it? That could be true in a distant future where robots/A.I's do everything for us, but that surely is not the case right now. I'm sorry if the universe is not perfect, but capitalism still delivers more prosperity than any other economic system in history.

>>7598684
You're assuming too much about my views. I value work, and I value capitalism; but it delivers however much prosperity is profitable, nothing more, nothing less. Based upon such a limited goal, it can't last forever, no more than feudalism could before it. I myself don't refute capitalism's successes, or its dynamism or strength, but I do feel that we are reaching a point of ultimate contradiction - how will US workers feel when the people working in sweatshops are not the distant Chinese but themselves? In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the grievances of workers led to the formation of powerful anti-capitalist movements ranging from fascism to Soviet socialism, which were only subsumed by the rise of social democracy after World War Two. But now social democracy is plainly kaput. So what will happen next? It can't be the simple exportation of third world workers' woes to the first, without upheaval or complaint. If we continue towards "equal development" we will continue towards the end of capitalism.

>>7594890
I don't own any berets

>>7598697
> how will US workers feel when the people working in sweatshops are not the distant Chinese but themselves?
You seem like an intelligent guy, but holy fuck, mate. American workers complain all the time that "the Chinese are stealing our jawbs!" The system is pefrectly sustainable and there is not a single person that has ever proved otherwise.

>>7598718
American workers complain about it now, but will they feel the same way when they're crammed into the conditions Chinese workers endure? The last time Americans did that kind of work, there were communist movements all over the country. And Chinese workers are only held back from outright unionizing by their government. There's no way Americans could tolerate the same treatment without the same kind of repression - and if a system has to be enforced through violent authoritarianism, is it really all that sustainable? Especially given that the "natural" nature of capitalism is half of the reason it is proposed as the best system we have.

File: Economic Freedom.png (333KB, 2000x1033px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 2000x1033px

>>7598722
>American workers complain about it now, but will they feel the same way when they're crammed into the conditions Chinese workers endure?
Well, now you are making predictions. There is no way to know about the feelings of individual workers.
>a system has to be enforced through violent authoritarianism, is it really all that sustainable?
It doesn't have to. It is was not enorced through authoritarianism in Europe or in the US. There were some socilaists movements, but how did they turned out?
Also, look at the number of democracies in the world. Now look at how many of them follow the capitalist system. All of them? That's right.

1) Are universities going to be looking for experts on Marxism in the next decade, in terms of needing a few undergrad lecturers to cover labour studies/sociology/english classes

2) Can we run a reading Capital book club in starting on the next couple weeks? That book fucking haunts so much shit, I bet a lot of us have been putting it off.

>>7598738
Well, that's what I'm saying. You're talking about the past. The past has happened. We know that capitalism was the best option in 1917, in 1945, in 1989. Now, however, the world is changing very rapidly, and to assume complacency based upon the past seems very misguided. The primary reason capitalism has triumphed over feudalism and early attempts at socialism is because it offers more material goods - but now if, as you suggest, capitalism will become a game in which there is no "developing" class to exploit (because they have known nothing better), then how can it argue the case against any alternative except through fear? Which I think is what we are already witnessing. Nothing is static.

>>7598744
It's not exploitation. Stop saying that.
Capitalism still exists in the US mainly through the service sector. In a distant future, maybe all factory jobs will be automated and everyone will work in services. Or people will still work in factories if they need to in order to survive, without any government coercion. There is just no way of knowing.

>>7598455
>human beings are rational

hahah thanks for that mate. does your retardation cause constant butt hurt?

>>7598738
>canada
>more economically free than the US
Meanwhile, in reality, the government has its hands in every industry. The government in most municipalities is one of, if not the, largest employer. The government takes every opportunity it can to implement price control in the form of price ceilings and price floors resulting in shortages and surpluses, respectively.

Oh yes, the Canadian economy is much freer than the American economy.

Solid meme.

>>7598756
>It's not exploitation. Stop saying that.

There's no way getting around it--profit is surplus value is surplus labor is making workers labor more than the time necessary to provide with a value equivalent to the wage. Exploitation is what makes capital possible. If you paid workers an equivalent to what they provide in terms of value then there would be no profit, no capital.

>>7599030
The state is NECESSARY in capitalist formations. It arises spontaneously to attempt to reconcile conflict between capitalists and labor and capitalists themselves.

>>7599078
You're making the assumption that value is objective.

If you purchase a loaf of bread from a grocer for $3, the only reason you come to an agreement is because the bread is worth more to you than $3 and the $3 is worth more to the grocer than the loaf of bread. Value is entirely subjective.

It's the same circumstance with labour. If an employee and employer agree to $15/hour for labour, it's because the employee values $15/hour more than his hour of labour and the employer values the labour more than the money.

It's not exploitation because it's entirely voluntary and both parties win in the transaction. This balance and equilibrium is destroyed though when the state steps in and implements price control.

>>7599078
>If you paid workers an equivalent to what they provide in terms of value then there would be no profit, no capital.


this is called the return on the capitalist's investment, if there is no "exploitation" then no one will invest in capital and there will be no capital for the workers to use...this is why marx is a dummy. an industrial machine is not the same as a field, you can't compare agricultural exploitation to industrial work. only a lazy thinker would do that. without the landlord the field would still be there...without the capitalist the factory would be a field! marxism is fucking stupid, which is why it's in the dustbin of history where it belongs.

>>7599129
>Value is entirely subjective.

So you can coordinate total social reproduction on a global scale, maintaining socially necessary amounts of labour in different industries and sectors of the economy each dependent upon specific ratios of supply and demand to maintain their own continuity in production and profit realization through a collection of entirely subjective exchanges?

Because that's what one part of the LTV does. It actually explains how the fuck labor is able to, without central coordination, move within conditions of semi-equilibrium in conditions of high segmented, autonomously moving independent capitals.

Again. The state is a necessary moment in capitalist formations. Without the state, workers and capitalists would be in a continual state of antagonism and capitalists among themselves would in their self-interest destroy normal, sustainable capitalist production.

>>7599151

>without the capitalist the factory would be a field!

Funny how the capital fetish just can make itself expressed so spontaneously. "Capital", or constant capital (machinery, raw materials), is itself the product of labor. It's the labor-process congealed into an object. Without active, living labor (the worker), it's just a machine rusting away. So workers not only make the machine, they actually make it useful as well.

>>7599228
And who buys the machines? Who hires the workers? Who has brilliant ideas for products? Who puts their capital at risk? Who takes the initiative? Who orchestrates the whole thing?
Entrepreneurs are just as, and sometimes even more, necessary than the workers themselves. He has to be compensated for the risk of investing , otherwise there would be no incentives.
Also, there is no exploitation, since workers are aware of the contracts they have voluntarily signed with their employers.

File: kommunismus-mulleimer-zeichen.png (58KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1000x1000px

>>7594895
Thank you!

Marx never worked, mever dealt withaccounting or making a living, never had todo a shift in the factory, yet he thinks he´s capable of writing allthat fascist shit.

>>7597608
>From Marx to Lenin to today's Chinese communists, admiration for and recognition of the successes of capitalism - emulation of those successes, even - has never been absent from communist thought
What the fuck am I reading?

Chinese communists literally went from town to town and buried alive the "bourgeois"

Lenin absolutely loathed anything close to capitalism

The fuck are you talking about?

>>7599399
Marx was enormously fascinated by the potential of industrial production and innovation realized by the capitalist mode of production. You forgot he thought the capitalist mode of production was the highest one achieved by humanity thus far?

Chinese communists literally emulated the 'industrialization is progress' trope like the USSR and the others

Lenin thought fordism was great

just a short reply, read more.

>>7594890
Because I don't like political philosophy, and I find Communism/Socialism extremely boring.

On top of that, it's been proven that, like anarchy, communism doesn't work.

>All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

>>7597593
>Cost of food down by 10x

If you only knew what kinds of shit they put in your food to make it cheaper

>>7599399

China is neo-liberal today, not communist. It's been that way since the 1980s.

>>7600255
>On top of that, it's been proven that, like anarchy, communism doesn't work.
howbout you find that out for yourself you parroting capitalist pig, no but really stop assuming, it is functionable, try, idk, reading it

File: 317894_2536286210160_1343735660_33062832_277064271_n.jpg (130KB, 799x537px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 799x537px

>>7600427
>you parroting capitalist pig
Aren't you a capitalist pig as well?

>>7600427
>howbout you find that out for yourself you parroting capitalist pig, no but really stop assuming, it is functionable, try, idk, reading it

Because China, Cuba, and Stalin's Russia/USSR were paradises, right?

Also, it's only functional (functionable isn't a word, if you didn't know) according to books written by old Russian philosophers.

>>7598153

Don't worry anon, I think your collection is bretty good!

File: 1331354697760.png (136KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 300x300px

>>7597281
>wasn't trying to predict anything exactly

capitalism is just being able to trade stuff when both parties agree, there is nothing more to it.

the so called "free-market" crisis were a product of state intervention increasing money offer, and contrary to what marx wrote, they did not escalate nor disrupted social/economical organization

also, his biggest flaw was considering that value came from amount of work rather than the usefulness of the goods. adam smith did this as well

File: 1309388635231.jpg (155KB, 400x505px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 400x505px

>>7597586
>thiking that "free education" is actually free

>>7597632
dude, i live in SA and i can assure you there have been heavily centralized regimes here in the last 50 years, nothing liberal about that

>>7598562
better

>>7599399
>>7599749
Exactly. Communism is rooted in an admiration and acknowledgement of capitalism. China today is in many ways just the logical outcome of certain strands of Marx's thought - the current CCP might not be socialist, but it is definitely Marxist in outlook and rationale.

>>7600577
Marx also talked about the intertwining of state and market interests as a key part of capitalism - so even if the crisis wasn't caused by the market, by taking place in a world where the state interest is to serve the motive of endless accumulation, it was still inherently down to capitalism. Do you know anything about Marx, comrade?

>>7600604
I'm not saving this image. ; )

>>7598697
corporations will just have to pay their employees better. some of them will bankrupt and local business will prosper and take their places. Also, somewhere there will always be scarcity of something, prices will float accordingly. what you see today is just one point of the sine function

>>7600588
This, tbqh. I can't believe people still fall for this shit.

>>7600344
Not to mention the issues of environmental sustainability when it comes to our agricultural industries.

>>7597056
>Me and some fellow communists
Terminate yourselves, please.

>>7596937
Whoa! You've completely buttfucked Marx and Adam Smith at the same time in the same 4chan post! Now all you have to do is send it to some prestigious university and wait for your cathedra. And remember: if they ignore you it's all because there's a socialist conspiration against geniuses like you.

>>7594890
>Not being based Third Way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

>>7597056
Google, there are loads of copies online

File: 1392252459255.png (2MB, 1280x2108px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x2108px

>>7602193
>not being a laissez-faire capitalist.

>>7594890
>tumblr
fucking kill yourself

>>7600344
What do they put in my loaf of bread these days?

Why the fuck do you guys know SO MUCH about Marx? Every thread on this is just rife with all this niche information

>>7597471
>What's the difference between socialism and free market economics?

Free market economics works in theory and practice.

>>7602966
I'm also baffled that people would waste so much of their limited time on this earth reading obscure authors of a failed ideology.

>>7603239
You think Marx is obscure? Also, Marxism isn't an ideology. If you read Marx you might actually know what the word ideology means. Lol.

>>7603257

One is under the sway of ideology when one holds beliefs that are contrary to or obscure the 'really real reality' of socio-economic relations that determine class structure, distributions of power, etc etc etc.

That is 'Marxism' to a tippy hatted T.

>>7602663

But why would you voluntarily dissolve your country's sovereign currency?

>>7603280
Not only is that not a satisfactory definition of ideology, but it doesn't describe Marxism. Perhaps you have a general misinformed impression of what communism is and you're confusing that with Marxism.

>>7603305

No, friend, I will not engage in a shit-flinging contest with you.

If you want to augment my bullet point with your own fully-saturated definition of ideology, please do. Correct my false consciousness in every which way you can, I beg you.

>>7603310
You could start by reading Marx instead of avoiding him for ideological reasons.

>>7603297
The currency remains. It just stops being fiat money.

>>7603257
I wasn't talking about Marx, but other marxist authors. One guy at /his/ told me to go read "Mandel" as if he was the most important theorist of our age.
The first thing that comes up when you search for Mandel is a Canadian comedian.

>>7603314

Well meme'd, bud.

I have read Marx extensively. It was this experience with his work that has contributed the most to my current attitude toward it.

Way to avoid your intellectual responsibilities, though.

>>7603335

Non sequitur. Okay. But right, because gold and silver are 'more real' than stupid fake 'fiat money' that is only backed by the belief of those that use it that it holds value. Oh, wait..

>>7598593
>The most obvious one is probably the labour theory of value
Can you debunk this?

>>7603363
You can't print gold, mate.
And it's not about trust, it's about stability.

>>7603374

Because the gold standard was so great at maintaining global market stability.

>>7603374
Do you really think it's impossible to destabilize gold?

>>7603374

Just Google 'liquidity trap'.

>>7603372
Value is subjective.
For example, I am selling two coffee mugs. One is red and the other is blue. Both required the same amount of work to be produced.
You come into the store to buy a mug. You don't like red, so you are not willing to pay anything for the red one. You decide to buy the blue one, instead.
Unfortunately, when you arrived home you accidently broke your newly aquired coffee mug. You start to get desparate, as you have a party at your house starting in 20 minutes and you need another mug. You then decide to go back to the store and buy the blue one, which you were previously not willing to pay anything for.
Summing up, people's perception of value differs from each other and depends on the situation.

>>7603385
A liquidity trap is the best example as to why the printing of money by a central bank does not work in times of crises.

>>7603431
...or at all.

>>7603431
>>7603435

Explain your reasoning.

>>7603380
It is a lot less unstable than having an authority capable of printing more of your currency.

>>7603439
I was writing a huge comment, but I think this explanation is a bit better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiD9FSp_tMw

>>7603487

The recent lackluster successes of QE does not vindicate the gold standard, it merely highlights the difficulty of implementing effective monetary policy when you have uncooperative parties in both private and public sectors. It is also only one strategy that a sovereign currency allows you.

Try again.

>>7603503
Let's try to explain it in another way.
In times of crisis, the money banks receive from the central bank is not lent to individuals or firms, since the economy is too unstable and risky.
Instead, they buy government bonds or speculate, thus making QE innefective at stimulating the economy.
Alternatively:
M*V = P*Q
If V goes down, the policy is innefective.

>>7603547
...The gold standard does not allow money printing, thus preventing QE and inflation.

File: Plato statue_610_300_s_c1_center_center.jpg (136KB, 610x300px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 610x300px

>>7594890
Cause I'm starting with the greeks!

>>7603547

Yes. Again, private institutions refusing to cooperate with what otherwise would be effective monetary policy. Again, not a vindication of the gold standard.

>>7603550

Preventing QE is not a mark in the gold standard's favor, and its track record at preventing inflation is very spotty. It also limits your monetary policy to 'wait and watch', the end result being 'okay, the crisis resolved itself' or 'oh shit we gotta do something'. The first thing usually done is suspension of the god standard.

>>7603554
>>>7603550

>>7603566
>Preventing QE is not a mark in the gold standard's favor
It actually is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard
>It also limits your monetary policy to 'wait and watch', the end result being 'okay, the crisis resolved itself'
Exactly.

>>7603567
>>7603566

>>7603574

Except they usually don't resolve themselves, and if they did the social consequences would be untenable, which is why intervention occurs in the first place.

The 'magic' of the god standard paired with laissez-faire policy is mass cyclical unemployment on a global scale, which leads to massive social unrest, impoverishment, technical regression--the list goes on.

>>7603593
>What is Say's law
Simply put:
1. The economy is in recession. People get laid off and stop buying products.
2. Entrepreneurs notice that people are now willing to work for less, since it is better than being unemployed. (prices in the labour market go down)
3. People get re-hired and the economy picks up again.

>>7603631

Say's law is 1) paradoxical; how, exactly, is supply suppose to create its own demand? Especially when NO ONE HAS ANY MONEY BECAUSE THEY'VE LOST THEIR JOBS and 2) rejected by basically everyone because of 1).

Who's rehiring? All the firms are closed, and new firms can't emerge because they can't raise the capital to start up, and they can't raise the capital because the arbitrary limitation on currency inflation prevents them from taking out a loan.

File: image.jpg (39KB, 383x384px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 383x384px

>>7603648
That is not even a valid criticism since even Keynes himself agreed that the economy could fix itself. He was just too impatient to let it do its thing.
"In the long run, we will all be dead"

>>7603696

Yes, surely it's better to let three generations suffer in poverty until the next employment wave eddies its way to your country. Because the economy is not a mechanism for bettering mankind, but its own eternal, autonomous entity with sovereign rights that supersede the desires and aspirations of any puny mortal people.

Christ.

>>7603696

And what do you mean 'not a valid criticism?' When has demonstrating the inconsistency of an argument ever not been a valid criticism?

>>7603717
who gives a fuck about economy bitch

>>7603725
>>7603717
>>7603696
>>7603648
>>7603631
>>7603593
>>7603574
>>7603567
>>7603566
>>7603554
>>7603550
>>7603547
>>7603503
>>7603487
>>7603447
This is /lit/ where we discuss literature, not the economy. If you want to discuss economics go to /biz/

>>7603725
I own a company. Times are rough and I have to lay people off.
The supply in the job market just increased, meaning that workers are now worth less.
I hire more workers for lower wages until the economiy picks up.
It has nothing to do with wanting people to suffer. It is the exact opposite. Government intervention creates more problems than it solves.

>>7603734

The conversation developed organically out of a larger discussion about a piece of economic/sociological literature. The mods have kept the thread alive thus far, so I guess that's an implicit endorsement.

If you have nothing to contribute, leave.

>>7603745

That kind of market flexibility is possible because of an elastic currency! How do you not get this? I am not advocating for any specific policy, only against the gold standard and for a sovereign currency.

File: image.jpg (28KB, 313x470px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 313x470px

>>7603734
Happy now?

>>7603760
Deflation is still possible with the gold standard, mate.

>>7603774

Because that's so much better than mild, sustained inflation that is a necessary consequence of growing an economy.

>>7603774

Seriously, what? 'Deflation is possible under the gold standard.' That's your defence?

>>7603796
I was saying that the austrian business cycle is still possible under the gold standard (especially under it) since prices can still freely change. The gold standard just prevents governments from artificially messing with prices.

>>7603831

The problems it produces far exceed the temporary and tenuous benefits it offers. We've already been over this. It's been tried, multiple times. It's failed, every time, and for the exact reasons mentioned above. It's a pipe dream. The desire to see it implemented might stem from positive motivations, but reality, especially political reality, doesn't care about that.

File: hayek-color.jpg (40KB, 424x512px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 424x512px

>collectivism
>2016

>>7603852
It has never been tried. There has always been government intervention in the hopes it could mitigate the negative effects of a deleveraging.

>>7603859

Not even close to what we're talking about.

>>7603866

The interventions have been immediate reactions to the attempts to have it implemented...by the very governments attempting to implement it.

>>7603859
Based Hayek.

>>7603874
So they panicked and intervened? So it was not implemented?
Tell me of a government that has tried it.

>>7603874
>>7603866

You hold your hand to a stovetop, planning to keep it there for 5 minutes. But wait, you're hand is burning. You retract your hand after 5 seconds rather than 5 minutes. Did this mean you didn't try to hold your hand to the stove?

>>7603885

Both the UK and the US at various times over the course of the late 19th and 20th centuries.

File: image.png (13KB, 414x356px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 414x356px

>>7603890
The analogy is wrong. It is possible that the economy is a self-correcting mechanism, although am not entirely convinced. It does have cycles with painful downs, but those are only temporary.

>>7603903
Name one time.

>>7603940

THE GOLD STANDARD ACT OF 1900

FOR FUCK'S SAKE

>>7603933

The analogy is actually very apt. There is only theoretical support for a self-correcting market. Massive empirical evidence suggests this kind of theorizing is just wrong.

>>7603955
I was talking about Says law.

>>7603967
WE were talking abou Say's law, actually, and government intervention.

>>7603967

No you weren't, fuck off dude.

>>7603960
There can be no stove considering you don't know if the economy is a self-correcting mechanism. Since Say's law has never been put in practice, there is no empirical evidence.
Understand now?

>>7603988

What? Say's Law isn't a policy prescription, it's a theoretical attempt to explain market dynamics. A seriously flawed one at that.

>>7603992
The law says that the economy, if left alone, will self-correct. Since the economy has never been left alone, it cannot yet be considered flawed.

>>7604000

It actually doesn't state anything of the sort.

We've never NOT not seen phlogiston in action. This hasn't prevented physicists from developing and accepting an entirely separate framework for explaining physical laws.

>>7597343
>making the other guy wrong makes me right

>>7604009
I don't think you understand what Say's Law is, mate. The law is mainly used in laissez-faire theories to explain why the economy tends to full-employment on the long run.
If you are not willing to consider empirical evidence as necessary for the establishment of economic policies, we have nothing more to talk about.

File: 1448568151026.jpg (27KB, 500x328px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x328px

>>7603867

>implying Marxism is not the metaphysics of collectivism

can any one briefly enunciate any predictive quality of marxism which is of some utlility?

File: image.jpg (32KB, 385x382px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 385x382px

>>7604046
>>>7604009
Pic related.

>>7603975
What a fantastic way to end a discussion.

>>7604049
Minimum wage laws are bad, as are other labour benefits.

>>7599030
>Canada is not economically free
http://www.heritage.org/index/country/canada

>>7604064
if anything labor benefits have undone any terminal 'internal contradictions' within capitalism, preventing its predicted demise, though, right?

>>7604046

1) Economies do not tend toward full employment without intervention
2) Say's Law claims that supply will create its own demand and thus prevent gluts. This is demonstrably false, which is why Say's law is rejected by pretty much everyone but, apparently, you.
3) You were previously claiming Say's law had never been 'implemented', and now you are claiming empirical evidence supports it. Not only that, but your 'evidence' is a basic model that has nothing to do with what you're claiming.

File: Emile_Durkheim,_Division_du_travail_social_maitrier.jpg (154KB, 370x610px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 370x610px

>>7594895
>>7594890
no u

>>7597605

Tell that to the child without legs. I bet you wouldn't be able to deal with something so crippling even as an adult. You'd be suicidal for a good couple of years.

>>7604083
1. There is no evidence of that.
2. How can you consider it is false, given that it has never been tried?
3. I didn't say that empirical evidence supports it. I said that there is no empirical evidence that disporves it.
3.5. The graph was not an evidence to economy self-correction. It was an evidence to what the Say's Law is actually about, something you don't seem to understand.

>>7604096
Répugnant

>>7604114

1) The evidence is in the fact that gluts DO OCCUR and that full employment IS NEVER ATTAINED 'naturally'
2) It's not something you 'try'. It's either tenants or untenable. It isn't tenable.
3) Your claims are confused and contradictory
3) The model you provided is demonstrating a recession, something that shouldn't be possible given Say's law

>>7604128
1. If given enough time, maybe it will
2. A laissez-faire approach to an economic crisis can be tried.
3. Sorry
4. Recessions can occur, but the economy naturaly moves towards full-employment in the long run. See that ASlr? Yeah, that's it. Basic classical economics.

>>7604139

That curve has to be imputed. It's an assumption that is empirically AND THEORETICALLY disproven. That is why Say's law is rejected. We shouldn't even be discussing this, it's a waste of time.

>>7604145
Let's just leave it at that, then.
But it was still not empirically disproven.

>>7604159

Yes, it was, by all the market gluts that have occurred between the 18th century and now.

Good night.

>>7604163
The gluts are nothing more than the result of misallocation of resources and are necessary for the adjustment of the economy.
Good night.

>>7604174

'Misallocation' or not (why should this matter in the aggregate?) they should be impossible according to Say's law. For someone with a master's grasp on classical economics it's amazing that you aren't able to understand this very, very basic point.

How much philosophy should I have under my belt before read Capital?

>>7604236
None, you just need a few extra chromosomes.

>>7604236
Just play it safe, and start with the Greeks.

>>7603404
Same question I asked earlier: how does a purely subjective theory of value account for the coordination of total social capital and its reproduction through necessary exchanges between independent capitals?

Value-subjectivism always likes these stupid examples and considers them profound without realizing that the vast majority of exchanges occur between capitals in such a way that insures the continued reproduction of both parties.

File: image.png (2KB, 300x197px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 300x197px

>>7604780
1. An equilibrium price is found for every product.
2. Marx's theory of reproduction is shit because value is not determined only by supply. I wouldn't become too attached to it if I were you. No one belives this shit in 2016.

>>7598153
Lovely