Why are the humanities so obsessed with Marx?

They weren't smart enough to build a good mathematical framework so they decided to appeal to the ideas of some historical person instead

Seriously, where's the testable hypotheses of humanities, or most social science?

>>1723280
>implying its possible to gather information necessary to write a mathematical hypothesis

>>1723280
This. Can you fucking scientifically prove philosophy?

What's that? Huh? Nothing?

Wow. Thought fucking so.

>>1723280
The Austrian refutation to Marx is that a mathematical framework is impossible. Are Austrians even more retarded than Marxists?

>>1723293

yes, but not by much

>>1723293
wtf is the austrian refutation?

The darkest secret of academics hidden in plain sight: Marx was based as hell.

Seriously, have you read him? If you approach him with an open mind it's hard to completely dismiss his ideas.

Really he should be up there with Darwin, Newton, or Plato as an ideological founder that is just accepted as a baseline for further development, but his analysis was so politically and philosophically troubling that it never came to pass. As if the anti-darwinists won in the early evolution vs religious orthodoxy debates of his day and we had to continue in a world where biology (probably known as naturalism) exists but where suggestion of genetic inheritance and environmental mutation are met with constant controversy and hostile "debunkings".

>>1723340
Except pretty much all of Marx's ideas are either unfalsifiable or have been falsified

>>1723340
idk. his analysis of capitalism's underpinnings is mostly spot on but it's wrong to treat him as infallible. he himself distanced himself from certain parts of das kapital later on in his life, particularly his theory that rate of profit always tends to fall.

>>1723261
OP, I encourage you to check out, "Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education" by Based Roger Kimball.

File: tmp_12959-1472134379935-1423243562.png (292KB, 600x558px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 600x558px

>>1723261
Because they never suffer consequences of the ideas the spout.

Because they have never taken economics 101 or really know anything about resource allocation, value, wealth and so on

Because they're fucking pussies who reduce every human inequity as oppression or literal raping, constantly trying to escape personal responsibility and self esteem

I hate dealing with humanities departments. They were never working class they've never had to work period. Fucking pansy faggots

>>1723357
>particularly his theory that rate of profit always tends to fall
Not his theory. The tendency of the rate of profit to fall was first, a tendency not an eventuality, and second it was an observed phenomenon noted by prior economists. Theories on it were explanations why it tended to happen. It's not even really relevant.

>>1723383
Econ 101 is about supply and demand and mostly micro, they purposefully obfuscate the effects of capital in a market economy in 101. It's pretty clear you've never taken Econ 101 or read Kapital.

>>1723352
[CITATION NEEDED]

File: rate-of-profit.png (110KB, 3761x2295px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 3761x2295px

>>1723389
> It's not even really relevant.
K.

>>1723403
>falls during the golden age
I don't get it.

>>1723389
>It's not even really relevant.
How is it not relevant if it's a core idea that supports his position that capitalism will ultimately eat itself?

>>1723415
The profit rate tend to fall when the organic composition(constant value/variable value) o capital gets bigger.
t.Marx

>>1723416
>How is it not relevant if it's a core idea that supports his position that capitalism will ultimately eat itself?
>a
Because its >a, not >the

>>1723261
Aspects of his work, along with aspects of the work of Weber and Durkheim, formed the basis for the Humanities—as a quick search online would have shown you: >>1723289

>>1723280
>Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful.

http://skepdic.com/scientism

>>1723261
Other economic theories = plausible theories based in reality

Marxism = science fiction retards took seriously

File: tmp_12959-1473149676802-1775728142.gif (1MB, 258x277px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 258x277px

>>1723395
Kapital is at least better than CM

Marx fails to outline anything on efficient allocation of resources which at least in entry level macro econ, you'll learn basic price theory. He also fails to mention anything on wealth creation, rather just distribution.

Kapital was long as fuck to me so sorry if I don't remember all of Marxs shit. Just after reading about his life I had to figure out how he thought he could pontificate on things which he clearly knew nothing about

>>1723357

I find this language interesting since it's my understanding that Marx continued to write Capital (vols 2 & 3) until the moment of his death. If instead you refer only to vol 1, then it would be helpful to clarify same.

My point being that it is hard to distance oneself later in life from a work that you have spent the entire end of your life working on. Another topic for discussion: in the published versions of vols 2 & 3, are there retractions or qualifications of certain ideas that had been published in vol 1, directly to your point?

>>1723416
>ultimately eat itself
Not like this, but capitalism can't exists without crises and when the crises destroy excess capital(or the capital is sell for a lower price) the profit rate climbs again, and as the time passes the crises get bigger and bigger due to globalization and the volume of capital itself.
That's why we didn't come out of this crises yet, not enough capital was destroyed because of the government help, but they can't hold it for to long, the interest rates are negative already.

>>1723445
>Marx fails to outline anything on efficient allocation of resources which at least in entry level macro econ, you'll learn basic price theory. He also fails to mention anything on wealth creation, rather just distribution

Input output tables
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input%E2%80%93output_model

Humanities aren't that obsessed with Marx. I would say only sociologists are obsessed with Marx, and even then not all sociologists are hardcore Marxists.

People tend to conflate sociology with the humanities at large.

>>1723467
I don't see how that's relevant, could you elaborate

>>1723383
>value
Modern economics has given up on trying to define what value is and now treats it as synonymous with price.

File: 1471566118687.jpg (229KB, 853x1009px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 853x1009px

>>1723445
>Marx fails to outline anything on efficient allocation of resources which at least in entry level macro econ, you'll learn basic price theory. He also fails to mention anything on wealth creation, rather just distribution.

Because he wrote a critique of capitalism, not a plan on how to fix it. He didn't even want to attempt to fix it because he thought it was fundamentally flawed. Just because you look at how to fix capitalism doesn't mean he did. He though to have efficient allocation of resources, the allocation of resources needed to be controlled by the people first.

You do realize Kapital was written a century and a half ago, and most of those theories you learn in classes now were developed after Marx died, right? He was very well read on the classical economists that came before. Are you really going to fault him for not having a time machine and predicting what future economists wrote?

And yes he did write on wealth creation. He attempted to correct some flaws in LTV to make more sense, because LTV was still the mainstream interpretation of value back when was alive.

Contrary to popular belief he was not writing a blueprint for communism nor was he writing comprehensive textbook to explain everything about economics, ever.

>Just after reading about his life I had to figure out how he thought he could pontificate on things which he clearly knew nothing about
What you're really saying is all you know about Marx came from an infographic.

>>1723352
>We falsified his unfalsifiable ideas and unfalsified the falsifiable ones.

>>1723340
Best post

>>1723340
>Really he should be up there with Darwin, Newton, or Plato as an ideological founder that is just accepted as a baseline for further development
You can see something of it in History, where liberal and even conservative scholars will make grudging concessions to the materialist conception of history.

>>1723340
>plato
>muh forms
>muh celestial spheres
Debunked hundreds of years ago. Platonists
BTFO
T
F
O

>>1723261
Because he was the first major cultural critic to apply a rigorous analysis to our society

>>1723489
You don't need markets to set prices, because the law of value isn't present in a socialist system(as it does in capitalism), you just need to divide the economy in sectors and do the material balance and chose where invest the surplus for a certain goal i.e grow the means of production or consuption.
That was the USSR economic system with Stalin(they used money just as a mean of acounting, it did not circulated), after his death, Khruschev introuduced vairous economic forms that in the end revived the law of value(profit motive in enterprises, co-ops owning the means of production, decentrilized the economic plan), and it culminated with the return to capitalism, as the law of value needs markets to be efficient(thats why people call him revisionist).

Dunno about the other humanities, but most of my good history professors were Marxists, the reason being that things like Historical Materialism are easily proven in world history and give meaning to what happened in history.

It's much more logical to say "history is about the progress of mankind" than it is to say "history is about stuff that happened."

Without Marx and Hegel the entire field of history is meaningless. On top of that he made so many contributions to other disciplines and was the first philosopher to actually delve into how capitalism works and where we as a society are headed due to industrial capitalism.

>>1723550
Or you could just use markets.

I mean if you know exactly where you want to head, like making a giant ass interstellar generation ship, and you have the computational power to calculate inputs and outputs, and effective means of checking these inputs and outputs, sure you could plan it.

>>1723340
>Really he should be up there with Darwin, Newton, or Plato as an ideological founder that is just accepted as a baseline for further development,

But he is

>>1723400
>1723400
[COLAPSE]

>>1723575
See this graph >>1723403
, capitalism will keep going in crises, we reach a point in the development of the productive forces in with actual markets and the relations of production are and impedment for progress.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1go

Good lecture if you wan't a Marxist perspective in the economy, and and critique of neoclassicals and keynesians.

>>1723389
>Not his theory.
Neither was the labour theory of value, which you find in Smith and Ricardo, but people who've only read the abridged Wealth of Nations and no Ricardo whatsoever don't know that.

>>1723383
Anon, where did the bad Humanities professor touch you?

>>1723352
His analysis of infra- and superstructures is the basis of all viable anthropological macro-theory today.

As a political idealist he might've been wrong, but as a social scientist I'm with this
>>1723340
he laid the foundation for scientific anthropology and sociology and should be up there with Darwin and Newton.as the leading figure of social science.

>>1723598
But there's no problem of capital accumulation in market socialism. There's a reason why the book is called Kapital and not Markets.

>>1723445
>Kapital is at least better than CM
Socialists contemporary with Marx regarded the Communist Manifesto as outmoded by Capital and writings like The Civil War in France.

>>1723550
The USSR was state-capitalist from its inception:

http://libcom.org/library/what-was-ussr-aufheben

Humanities can not produce a profit. There for the state should steal other people's profit and support them.

>>1723623
In market socialism the law of value still vigent.
>>1723645
Anarkidie pls,, tell this to Marx:

>The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
>Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
>Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
>Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

>>1723645>>1723652

State as in the Dictartorship of the Proletariat
t.Lenin

>>1723383
Also people think that somehow they will get free shit, or at least bring you down to their level because they'll never amount to shit. So it's "fair".

>>1723652
>In market socialism the law of value still vigent.
There's nothing wrong with that if your alternative solution isn't any better in delivering utility/use-value

>>1723668
See
>>1723467
>>1723550
It's like you want to make the same mistakes as Khruschev/Tito and kill socialism again.

>>1723502
This.

>>1723502
In the case of his life, he raped his maid, continued to borrow money from friends and family, even of his wife until they all hated them. And never was one of the workers which he endlessly wrote about.

Lmao classcucks getting blown the motherfuck out in this thread.

Worldwide revolution when?

>>1723694
You're going to be the first to be lined up and shot by Comrade Jamal and comrade BillyBob faggot

>>1723702
>implying I'm not Comrade BillyBob

>>1723684
>It's like you want to make the same mistakes as Khruschev/Tito and kill socialism again.
No, your centralized economy socialism was retarded and didn't work in the first place and there's no chance a modernized market capitalism will ever go there. China is doing very well economically, it just happens to be shit on human rights, democracy, and not starting poor 100 years ago. A very pro-labor democracy however might trend towards market socialism. Your alternative is shit, and might be okay for building an evil empire, but not for the welfare of the people.

>>1723575
Markets are fucking shit for distributing resources because the competitive process creates huge amounts of waste

>>1723652
>Marx's idea of the form of this transition period did not remain static throughout his life. In the 1840's, he saw it as a Jacobin-style political dictatorship in the manner of Robespierre and St. Just. He later came to envisage a system of elected delegates to local committees, as in the Paris Commune. Towards the end of his life he saw it as a democratic republic based on a majority of delegates from a socialist party elected democratically to parliament.
Via socialismoryourmoneyback

>>1723662
>The dictatorship of the party cannot be consonant with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Either the proletariat rules or is ruled.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1938/revolution-failure.htm

>>1723286
The scientific method and falsificationism is literally a philosophical concept devised by karl popper.

Kill yourself.

>>1723684
>kill socialism again.
The Bolsheviks did a perfectly good job of that on his own: >>1723645

>>1723691
>In the case of his life, he raped his maid
Falsifiable propaganda.

>And never was one of the workers which he endlessly wrote about.
He wrote about capitalists anon.

>continued to borrow money from friends and family
Which is how he had lots of experience with capitalists, because Engels gave him money he didn't work for because Engel's daddy was a capitalist and they realized capitalists didn't have to work because they didn't get money from working, which made Marx pretty salty.

>>1723439
>mathematical models is science
That's why mathlets should be gassed

>>1723708
No, you're an edgy retarded hipster.

>>1723723
>Markets are fucking shit for distributing resources because the competitive process creates huge amounts of waste
You could just regulate your markets.

>>1723691
He and Engels studied the english working class via the workers of Engels family factory. See "The condition of the working class in England".

>>1723710
>No, your centralized economy socialism was retarded and didn't work in the first place
What was USSR when the planned economy was still vigent(until 1957).
> No chance a modernized market capitalism will ever go there.
Damn we have an idealist here.
>China is doing very well economically, it just happens to be shit on human rights, democracy, and not starting poor 100 years ago.
China is on the shitter if you watch the news closelly, there are already neo-maoist there m8.
>Your alternative is shit, and might be okay for building an evil empire, but not for the welfare of the people.
You can't reform capitalism, the profit rates will still fall even after a breathing room, when you attack the third worlds workers wage.
>>1723726
I wan't Marx's own books passage not some third party anrchotrot shit eater.

File: a8c3364ddd99f9852b977507b4798d7cdee097061220cdec78bec1e364beb588.png (114KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1280x720px

>>1723730
Ahh the sweet smell of anarkidies, you can't mistake it.

>>1723754
The SPGB and Paul Mattick aren't anarchists or Trots, and both draw on Marx. You should at least know Mattick for his study Marx and Keynes: The Limits of the Mixed Economy. But that would mean reading outside the scriptures of St. Vlad, wouldn't it?

>>1723760
So many words to say nothing.

>>1723754
>What was USSR when the planned economy was still vigent(until 1957).
Shit
>Damn we have an idealist here.
Irony
>China is on the shitter if you watch the news closelly, there are already neo-maoist there m8.
There's otherkin in America, not sure what your point is m8. Does China's economy need to be reigned in to be in line with socialist and communist thought? Definitely. Is the Chinese economy failing and facing imminent economic collapse? No.
>You can't reform capitalism
Socialism != capitalism. Markets != capitalism. Socialism means the means of product are controlled by the proletariat. Capital means private ownership the means of production. In other words you're a retard.
>the profit rates will still fall even after a breathing room
If you actually believed Marx's explanations for the tendency, then they're mostly about capital accumulation. You're just one of those rabid anticaps. And guess what, you can always switch your market economy to planned later if it does continue to fall. You just do it at the point where it falls enough that it becomes the worse alternative.
>when you attack the third worlds workers wage.
We got a socialist in one country here.

Why are flies so obsessed with shit?

>>1723808
Why do people eat food that was grown in shit?

>The only communists on /his/ are Stalinists
I suppose it shouldn't surprise me.

>>1723691
Sounds like Bernie Sanders.

File: 14102202_1767519220203702_8717379680657207611_n.jpg (82KB, 960x660px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 960x660px

>>1723794
>Shit
From a feudal shithole to become the secong great power withou colonization or slavery.
>Irony
>We will never go from feudalism to capitalism guys i swear.
If you think the human history stops with capitalism you're an idealist that dont know history.

>If you actually believed Marx's explanations for the tendency, then they're mostly about capital accumulation. You're just one of those rabid anticaps. And guess what, you can always switch your market economy to planned later if it does continue to fall. You just do it at the point where it falls enough that it becomes the worse alternative.
Profit falls even without production for profits, truly amazing.
>We got a socialist in one country here.
?

File: 40 Keks.jpg (82KB, 350x331px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 350x331px

>>1723922
>without colonization or slavery.

File: c7564cfe7dd29a5bc8f5155ec1600c3ba3711142f0115d28a6961415c148a615.png (582KB, 663x960px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 663x960px

>>1723937

>>1723922
>From a feudal shithole to become the secong great power withou colonization or slavery.
Without colonization, right.
>If you think the human history stops with capitalism you're an idealist that dont know history.
Apparently you can't read because I keep saying socialism, and Marx's stages of history say socialism before communism.
>Profit falls even without production for profits, truly amazing.
I'm not even sure what you're smoking at this point.
>?
Well you certainly sing praises for it.

>>1723261

The anti-war movement of '68 was made of underground commies and they are all over universities right now

Do the math

>>1723922
>From a feudal shithole to become the secong great power withou colonization or slavery.

Are you fucking kidding me? You're talking about a country that was heavily dependent on slave labour for its economy that spent a good chunk of its existence milking satellite states.

>>1723946
>end of famines

>>1723963
Yeah but at least he has a tank

File: 1e0cbb197fcc6c72ded760fbdfc27415f9bebf15cdc4eaacb80d8b2f82bfc9f9.jpg (999KB, 1568x2146px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 1568x2146px

>>1723955
NOP

>>1723747
Yeah dude state control is tooootally the way to go

>>1723946
>state-managed farms run by technocrats
>collectivisation

>Holodomor
>an end to famines

etc, etc, etc

>>1723970
O shit

>>1723972
There's nothing wrong with state control in a functioning democratic state.

File: 1464134666863.gif (75KB, 1400x948px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1400x948px

>>1723963
>>1723969
Damn them slaves had free helthcare, education, sports facilites, worked form 7 to 5 hour in the most taxating jobs, everybody could fly to anypart of the country almost for free. I wish i was a slave there.

File: alternatehistory.gif (2MB, 420x236px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 420x236px

>>1723922
[COLLAPSE]

>>1724003
t. someone working in a gulag forced to say this by threat of more gulag

>>1724003
Not that Anon, but he's clearly referring to the Gulag system, which certainly furnished the economy of the misnamed Soviet Union with slave labour.

>>1724003
I was talking about the people in the forced labour camps, you fucking tankie.

File: 1469296196284.png (148KB, 1516x872px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1516x872px

>>1723976
>muhh huldumurr, stalin killeddd trillions
t.Goebles

>>state-managed farms run by technocrats
>collectivisation
It's this even an argumment?

>>1724014
Are you retarded? He wasn't claiming Holodomor was an engineered famine, but it was a fucking famine under Stalin.

>>1723340
Have you read Nietzsche? He wasn't a darwinist but all of his critiques of evolution at that time were latter shown to be valid.

He also has words on socialism and platonism.

>>1724014
>It's this even an argumment?
Yes. Do you even know what collectivisation is? Hint: it has nothing to do with being managed by the state.

>>1724014
Ho-hum:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stalin_apologetics#Holodomor

>>1724011
>>1724012
They were not slaves retards, And comparing slave period with gulags is fucking retarded too(in numbers and the time they the gulags were used).
Pic related >>1724014

>>1724024
Like the ones that happend periodically before Stalin(with was the last famine too).

>>1724033
>rationalwiki
>Black book of gommunism : - DDD
t.Literally CIA
Dropped hard m8.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOnIp69r6vg&index=36&list=FLxgJ0vK112MRHzFqHgPKAhw

>>1724035
>They were not slaves retards,

Yes they fucking were. They were forced to labour against their will for the benefit of a master, effectively the legal property of the state.

>Like the ones that happend periodically before Stalin(with was the last famine too).

You claim he ended famines, that isn't the case. You're acting like Stalin was a wizard with control of the fucking weather.

God damn, why are Tankies such awful human beings?

>>1724035
>They were not slaves retards
Er, yes they were.

>>1724031
They exist until today M8, the colletivization that freed people form the camp to work on the factories.

>>1724041
Conquest is referred to exactly twice in the whole article, you illiterate clown.

>>1724047
So you have zero knowledge of what collectivisation means outside dusty Stalinist propaganda.

File: 1471513119974.jpg (66KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 850x400px

>>1724042
>Yes they fucking were. They were forced to labour against their will for the benefit of a master, effectively the legal property of the state.
Poor prisioners, lets feed and house him until he finnish the sentence(not).
>You claim he ended famines, that isn't the case. You're acting like Stalin was a wizard with control of the fucking weather.
God damn, why are Tankies such awful human beings?
>You see guys, the tractor and machines that the industrialization(possibilited by the collectivization) produced didn't have nothing to do with with.
I despise the time that i was an Anarkiddie using the same arguments as you.

>>1724069
Is English your second language or do you have a learning disability?

>>1724069
>Poor prisioners, lets feed and house him until he finnish the sentence(not).

Yes indeed. Because we're human beings, not slave-owning monsters. Filth.

>I despise the time that i was an Anarkiddie using the same arguments as you.

I'm not an anarchist. If you weren't a pathetic loser, you'd understand that normal human beings have filters that prevent them from becoming extremists without basic human empathy.

But if you want to talk about ending famines and industrialization, the capitalists were better at both.

File: hhuehueuheuhe.gif (3MB, 350x196px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 350x196px

>>1724084
Mad?

This thread has reminded me of one thing: extremists tend to look alike, regardless of ideology. This Tankie is really acting no different from the "Uncle Adolph dindu nuffin" crowd on /pol/. Well, at least we can take comfort in the fact they're both just historical reenactors that will never, ever be relevant again.

>>1724092
No, I'm unsure whether you really are mentally subnormal or putting it on.

File: 14068248_1767522116870079_6774328173099361459_n.jpg (41KB, 635x357px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 635x357px

>>1724090
What a classcuck you are, no salvation.

>>1724101
>This Tankie is really acting no different from the "Uncle Adolph dindu nuffin" crowd on /pol/.
Stalinists are basically Holocaust deniers with a left-wing veneer.

File: 1463963467743.jpg (116KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 499x499px

>>1724107
yes

>>1724109
Yes indeed, Marxist-Leninists are religious fanatics.

File: d5e16a3573d6cf63a5f6ed5942002735a39bb85409d62aec01506b4773de0279.png (41KB, 732x606px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 732x606px

>>1724114
>>1724101
>>1724121

>>1724125
>that image

So, what, not clinging to a hilariously failed ideology is a mark against someone in your worldview. Good for you that you think that. But it's really irresponsible of your mommy to allow you unrestricted access to the internet.

>>1723760
>>1723946
>>1724014
>>1724069
>>1724092
>>1724109
>>1724118
>>1724125
Another commonality between Stalinists and the alt-right: the inability to process thoughts more complicated than can be expressed through slogans, memes, and sloppy infographics.

>>1724148
Well, it's just a trademark of totalitarians of all stripes that they're looking for simple answers to complex questions. They want to entrust their lives (and everyone else's) over to some mystical strongman who will fix all the problems of a society they've found themselves unable to integrate with. The ambiguities and nuance of more complicated ideologies are incomprehensible to them, and appear to be weak-hearted idealism.

File: tumblr_nbjcny3hiV1trg6ibo1_500.jpg (69KB, 490x517px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 490x517px

Damn anarkidies are still spelling their idealist garbage iit

>>1724148
Case in point: >>1724157

>>1724189
Hey does anyone have that Wojak picture where he's holding up a :^) mask over his face while crying his eyes out? It seems like it would be applicable to the tankie that keeps spamming image macros.

>>1723261
Probably because his analysis was so revolutionary. You do not have to accept his theories on how society should be, but his historical analysis of the classes and how everything is based on materialism (ie the economy) is undoubtedly true and makes more logical sense than any other theory.

So when you hear academics talking about marxism, they are not referring to communism but most likely class progression in society.
"Cultural marxism" is a whole other issue that isnt what we are talking about

>>1724189
Shouldn't you be busy crushing communes, abolishing factory committees, and breaking up strikes in the name of improving the lives of the toiling masses?

>>1723667
marxism is not a synonym for communism you retard. Why dont you read about things before ejaculating nonsense all over the internet?

File: 1454458114805.jpg (295KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1280x960px

>>1724090
>Yes indeed. Because we're human beings, not slave-owning monsters. Filth.
Is that why the US have a prison population that do slave labour similar to the size of the soviet gulag population?

>>1724234
>And you are lynching negroes.

>>1724234
I'm not American. But as I recall, they're given the option of not doing prisoner labour and paid for their time.

>>1723261
Because when studying something it helps to be critical of the things you're studying. You seldom start to study something because you think its is completely fine and normal.

>>1724229
Name one marxist country. dicksucker.

>>1724246
I'm in no way defending gulags. I'm claiming that Prisoners in the US today are being treated just like those in gulags. So yes if you're in the US you benefit from slave labour as much as the soviet citizens back in the gulag days
.>>1724254
Which most of the prison population have no way to pay because they're already poor and deep in debt, If everything is fine you don't end up with the worlds largest prison population. It is there to let the rich of with a slap on the wrist.

>>1724314
> I'm claiming that Prisoners in the US today are being treated just like those in gulags. So yes if you're in the US you benefit from slave labour as much as the soviet citizens back in the gulag days
Do you live in Mississippi or something?

>>1724360
Somebody watches too many fucking movies. You're not forced to work in prison. You get paid. No work, no pay.

Isn't Marx one of the first major victim mentality thinkers? His ideas are extremely appealing to people not happy with life which these days is most people.

>>1724543
> victim mentality thinkers
What about Jews?

>>1724399
kek
do you realize how much prisoners get "paid"?

>>1724550
Not very fucking much. But they're treated better than the ones in gulags. Evidence of this can be found in instances where they went on strike and how the state handled that.

>>1723352
>COMMUNISM IS THE ONLY WAY FOR THE PROLETARIAT TO BE FREE!!!11
>IN A COMMUNIST SOCIETY, THERE SHOULD BE A FORM OF MANDATORY WORK!!!! (its not slavery guys, i swear)

I falsified it.

>>1724543
Jesus. Epicurus.

>>1724575
> FORM OF MANDATORY WORK
This isn't true, theory says that in communist society people would just do what they want and it would be what a society needs.

File: 1466712202249.jpg (77KB, 447x444px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 447x444px

>anarkiddies
>classcuck

Fuck sake, stop making us look like /pol/ with a different coat of paint.

Because Marxism gives power to people in humanities.

>"Probably the intellectual has more difficulty than the common man in freeing himself from this ideology which, like the State which derives from it, is his especial handiwork. The Soviet government rules in the name of a doctrine elaborated by an intellectual whose life was spent in libraries and interpreted for the past century by countless other intellectuals. Under a Communist régime the intellectuals, sophists rather than philosophers, rule the roost. The examining magistrates who unmask deviations, the writers coerced into socialist realism, the engineers and managers who are supposed to execute the plans and to interpret the ambiguous orders of the central authority — all must be dialecticians. The Secretary-General of the Party, master and arbiter over the lives of millions of men, is also an intellectual: at the end of a triumphal career he offers to the faithful a theory of capitalism and socialism — as though a book represented the highest accomplishment. The emperors of old were often poets or thinkers; for the first time the emperor actually reigns qua dialectician, interpreter of the doctrine and of history."

Raymond Aron, The Opium of the Intellectuals

>>1724549
Marx was a Jew.

>>1724604
He was also a Protestant

>>1724604
No, I mean Jews had a victim mentality even before him.

>>1724614
You can't be both, anon.

>>1724577
Both of them were a huge influence on Marx!

File: 1474419409095.jpg (19KB, 220x220px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 220x220px

>>1724624
Mentality based on actual life events. Unlike todays niggers who have been in slavery. (unless you count voting democrat).

>>1724628
An ethnic Jew can be any religion! Look like Bob Dylan or St. Paul

It's really a religion by this point. People will try to adapt their ideas to Marx just to fit in, because that's expected of them, like Thomas Aquinas adapting Aristotle to the Bible.

Now, I have to admit that Karl Marx is an important thinker in the history of economic and social science. But more important than him are Vilfredo Pareto and Max Weber. It's just that these two never had a group of revolutionary activists devoted to bring a utopia based on their ideas, so they ended up being forgotten.

>>1724646
St. Paul wasn't a Jew in the sense that Karl Marx and Bob Dylan were Jewish.

>>1724575
There's mandatory work for the prole in capitalism too. It's only not mandatory for the capitalist and his friends. Which is what Marx was salty about.

>>1724655
Yes he was.

You can use his ideas, for example looking at historical events in the context of class struggle, without being a full blown DEATH TO THE BOURGEOISIE commie. Same as some other anon said with Darwin, you don't have to believe everything he said to accept evolution (where the current theory has changed significantly from what Darwin taught).

He is important in many different fields of humanities because his writings changed the way people thought about social structures, history, literature, art, economics, and so on. Let's not pretend any of theses (including economics) are any sort of science though.

>>1724662
There's a difference between something being mandatory due to the state of nature, and something being mandatory because you'll be shot or sent to a gulag if you don't do it.

>>1724708
Okay, so then make a socialist state where they just stop feeding you if you don't work, just like capitalism for the proles.

>>1724575
>THERE SHOULD BE A FORM OF MANDATORY WORK!!!!
stop pretending you've read Marx

>>1724708
>private property and absentee ownership
>state of nature
'no'

>>1723702
>implying this is a bad thing
I'm happy the proles are going to purge the useless hipster faggot liberals who think they're Marxists

File: 1438107895376.jpg (83KB, 500x579px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 500x579px

>>1724708
>due to the state of nature

>>1723261
They are weaklings who feel better blaming someone else for their own misseries

>>1724736
Yeah, like blaming the left intellectuals for having no girlfriends and such. :^)

>>1724734

If you stop working and sleep all day in a hunter gatherer society you will die of starvation


There is literally no way to not work to survive

>>1724739
Yes there is. It's called owning capital in a capitalist society. Just have your trust fund managed by a portfolio manager and have him paid out of the dividends, and spend the rest of the dividends living your workless life.

File: 1468735501935.jpg (714KB, 900x762px) Image search: [Google]

714KB, 900x762px

>>1723261

The problems is that you are spooks in terms of morality and the worth of human rights.

So what if Hitler and Stalin killed millions of people. They got shit done that no one else did at the time. They had a vision.

Really, if you have the capacity to kill millions of people for your goals, don't you have more of a right to do that people who are too weak to harm others feelings.

Communism is lame. They wanna ban everything I like

>Movies

Better fit the parties ideology or it gets banned

>Books

Better reflect our ideology and espouse the victory of communism or it get banned


It's autistic

>>1724750
You don't have more of a right. You have more might. Leave your spooky rights out of this.

>>1724760
this is hardly unique to communism nor is it a necessary component

>>1724760
Movies and books were never banned in soviet union.

I really liked Thomas Sowell's - Marxism: Philosophy and Economics

It's not often you find the critique of someone who was an ex-Marxist for a long time, with such incredibly in-depth understanding of the material.

> People don't think the market be like it is, but it do - Black Economics Man

>>1723352
>Except pretty much all of Marx's ideas are either unfalsifiable or have been falsified

The fuck?

Social conflict theory was basically the last theory left standing by the end of the 20th century, after decades of trying to find a replacement that better fit the liberal academic narrative.

>>1723415
Profitability falls in the good times because essentially of automation. Essentially, the more you reproduce a commodity, the less profitable and valuable it becomes.

>>1724822
But you have more stuff so it's fine.

>>1724785
Marxism is not incompatible with markets. Sowell took on the USSR to "debunk" Marx, just like he "debunks" Keynes by taking on the Phillips curve.

>>1724738
Not following you here

>>1724745
K. That doesn't change the fact you're not forced to work under capitalism in any fashion that you're not forced to in our natural state.

>>1724781

They were heavily censored and had to be ideologically consistent


In a capitalist society we have literary genres that run the gamut from far left to far right to being somewhere in between. In the soviet union that shit wouldn't be allowed

>>1724953
In nature your labor leads to you catching an animal which you eat and enjoy wholly. Under capitalism a portion of your labor is expropriated and goes directly to the pocket of a capitalist all because of the flimsy superstructure of private property that is protected with force.

>>1724972
You're still not forced to work in any way you aren't in nature. The consequences remain the same. This is different from the compulsory labor that tended to crop up in Marxist societies. Further, one could argue that this system of appropriation allows both parties to maximize their economic gains by taking part in a larger economy. Get your criticisms of capitalism straight, and don't pick something so easily rejected.

>>1723340

>he seemed right

>so probably he is right

>>1724760
that's a characteristic part of every authoritarian regime

commies on 4chan don't want their commie regime to be authoritarian

>>1724983
>muh radical freedom to starve to death
You have the radical freedom to not work, get arrested, send to gulag, not work, get beaten, still not work, then killed in a firing line.

>>1724972

holy fuck you are underage but i will bite

>be me in primate age
>expend all my time hunting
>i'm a expert hunter
>go to home and then don't have tools for skin the animal, wood to build a fire, knowledge to build a comfortable place to sleep, textil to make clothes to don't die frozen, knowledge to mantain the flesh for days
>but i have a community who know those things and will happily give me the things i need for my hunter services

they call this being a slave to others? retarded

>>1724972
> a portion of your labor is expropriated

I don't think that means what you think it means.

>>1724983
>if you don't work you starve therefore capitalism is fundamentally indistinguishable from a hunter gatherer lifestyle
'no'
and we don't even have to get into how hunter gatherers never had to work 12 hours a day 6.5 days a week as capitalism demands of its sweatshop workers merely to survive

>>1725027
That's the description of a commune. It would be capitalist if there was a guy that owned all the spears and paid you half an animal for every animal you hunted for him with his spear.

>>1725027
>trading things you made with other people that made other things is the same as producing 10 dollars worth of a thing and only being compensated one dollar is the same
retard is you

>>1725044
>>1725057

the transition appears when there is surplus of people which happens with technology

if there is a situation in where every man is less valuable than a spear per use it's because there are a lot of men who could do the same

the basis is the same

Because he was a brilliant sociologist.

>>1723383
nice meme

>>1725038

if some guy has to work like that in capitalism it's because someone in his ancestor line didn't give a fuck about him

the fault is between their families, just like you have the chance to study some humanities career it's because somewhere in your ancestor line someone gave a fuck about you

all my uncles had to work manual labor because my family line started with my grandmother who got abandoned, and if you see the family lines of my neighbours nobody had to manual labor in their uncles line because their grandfathers already had a comfy place gave by generations of hard work

also i don't know if you have worked in factories but the average factory man isn't a paragon of virtue either

>>1725027
that's what we want you dumb shit

In modern-day society, you really can't be an independent hunter. You're hired by the man who owns the guns, and he takes 20% of the game you bring back.

If you complain, he finds a new hunter and you starve to death.

>>1725076
yeah all those people in Bangladesh or China making peanuts in factories are because they come from families where no one cared about them.

Same thing for all those poor sods in the UK and the usa working in shit conditions a century ago. Merely the product of bad families. Yep.

You have to be at least 18 years old to post on 4chan kiddo.

>>1725061
>if there is a situation in where every man is less valuable than a spear per use it's because there are a lot of men who could do the same
There's lots of men who could do all the labor required in owning spears too. There's just not lots of men that actually own the spears. Which is why owners often hire managers to manage other employees.

Workers get paid in proportion to the market rate of their labor and work.

Capitalists get paid in proportion to the market rate for the capital they own.

>>1725057
> producing 10 dollars worth of a thing and only being compensated one dollar

Except that doesn't represent reality at all. Just because a good is sold for $10 doesn't mean that 1 labourer is solely responsible for the existence, value & sale price of the good.

If I cut down a tree and sell timber to a guy for $10 and he carves a $20 figure out of it, you would understand that the carver isn't exploiting the timber man right?

Apply the same reasoning to a small business and you can clearly see that the idea of employers be default exploiting and expropriating is ludicrous.

>>1725091
>If I cut down a tree and sell timber to a guy for $10 and he carves a $20 figure out of it, you would understand that the carver isn't exploiting the timber man right?

Every point in that supply chain the worker is not at all alienated from his work and owns the full product of his labor. The timber man owns the log he cut down. Then he transfers ownership of the material good that he fully owns and transformed with his labor to the carver.

The carver then has full ownership of the log, carves it into a statue and still owns the entire product of his labor until he sells it.

Neither of them are selling their labor to a capitalist to extract surplus value from. Both of them own the full product of their labor until they sell it, the product of their labor, not the labor itself, and transfer ownership.

You must be one of the people that thinks communism means hippie communes and welfare.

>>1725091
the laborer is never compensated fully for what he produces the capitalist depends on this therefore capitalism is inherently exploitative

>>1725106
> What he produces

Here is the flaw in Marxist reasoning, you're assuming that the only thing the matters is what the worker does.

As I said apply your reasoning to a small business and the ludicrous idea falls apart quickly.

>>1725105
> The timber man owns the log he cut down
....and a pizza maker never claims to own the pizza he makes, he doesn't want to own the pizza he wants the wage that represents his labour. However the price of the good sold represents far more than what the pizza maker wants for his labour, don't make the mistake of ignoring every other factor involved in these interactions.

> extract surplus value

Who is deciding that there is surplus value? If I buy a camera off a mate for $200, and then he sells it to someone else for $250, has he extracted $50 of surplus value? Values are subjective.

Exploitation theory ignores; time preference, voluntary interaction, division of labour, division of risk, subjectivity of value, the employers contributions and many other factors it would be laughable if people didn't take it seriously.

>>1725091
If the carver owns the $10 log, labors to turn it into a $20 statue, and owns the statue that's not exploitation.

If the carver has a boss that owns the $10 log, hires a carver to provide labor for $5 and turns it into a $20 statue, that's $5 of exploitation.

>>1723293
In other words they are saying marx 'capitalizes' on a sentimental qualitative measurement, rather than objective quantitative value? Its very absurd and in introspective very negligent of the sacrifice of the people.

>>1725120
You're the one that came up with that infantile example. And yes, you said you cut the log and you sold the log. If in your second example the pizza man owned his own business and bought the ingredients, he would own the pizza until the point of sale. It doesn't matter if he wants to own it, he does.

>Exploitation theory ignores
No it doesn't.

>time preference ... the employers contributions
These can be considered labor. You're adding value. Some might argue it's more parasitic, but it's still labor if it adds value.

>division of labour, division of risk
These are advantages of collectivizing and economies of scale. They happen in cooperatives too. It just so happens that in cooperatives the workers are also the owners and there's no owner/worker dichotomy. This doesn't happen because of capitalists, it happens because of organization. Capitalists are just able to form such organizations because they own things.

>subjectivity of value
Of course this would be a non issue if workers owned the full product of their labor, but they don't. They sell their labor for a price and a capitalist owns the product of the labor. Any successful capitalist is going to make sure that they get objectively more market value than the cost of investment. They're going to maximize return on investment. This is obvious.

>>1725139
No, it's that Austrians say that there's only subjective qualitative value. The only objective quantitative value is market price.

>>1725124
No it's not. You're ignoring everything else but the carver and the log. I just listed everything you're ignoring and you continue to ignore it.

Besides all of that though, it's not a $20 log until the time that someone buys it for $20. At the time it was made similar logs might have been sold for $10.....but again if I sell a friend a Camera for $200 and then he sells it for $250, is that not the same as a labourer selling the labour for X amount but the product of that labour clearing Y in a transaction?

It's all bullshit though because we can't ignore all of the other factors involved in an employer/employee relationship.

Two words: Small Business.

>>1723293
marx refutes any corporate understanding? I think thats what the austrian...

Im pretty sure from the world our ancestors came from a lot of people lacked corporate understanding and understood corporal punishment pretty well. So the corporate separation from the corporal would be a perjorative. And a vector for licentiousness. They had to be willing to take the middle passage.

>>1725149
>Besides all of that though, it's not a $20 log until the time that someone buys it for $20.
at first it was a log that was carved into art being sold for $20 now it's just another log...

nigga what?


And how is small business any less exploitative? Genuinely curious. Employees of businesses big or small always produce more than they are paid it is a fundamental aspect of capitalism that isn't really debatable.

>>1725149
Why would you use such a simplified example then criticize the simplicity of your own example? Whose fault is that?
>Besides all of that though, it's not a $20 log until the time that someone buys it for $20.
And businesses are pretty consistent in making sure the returns is higher than the capital investment put into it.
>At the time it was made similar logs might have been sold for $10.....
If you own the log there's no exploitation separating you from the product of your labor. It's really that simple.
>but again if I sell a friend a Camera for $200 and then he sells it for $250, is that not the same as a labourer selling the labour for X amount but the product of that labour clearing Y in a transaction?
If you decided it wasn't worth the labor to find a buyer that would buy it for $250, and sold it for $200, and then your friend put in the labor to find a buyer for $250, then that difference is the product of your labor.
>is that not the same as a labourer selling the labour for X amount but the product of that labour clearing Y in a transaction?
No it's not because that's not how wage laborers get paid. There's been a full transfer of ownership, and at each point of sale, the individuals owned the product of their labor.

>>1725147
So Austrians reasoned that the speculative state of the consumer is the only true indicator for market freedom?

>>1725158
>marx refutes any corporate understanding?
He doesn't, he writes about how a capitalists sees return on investment. He basically outlines how a capitalist thinks. I don't even know what you're trying to say.

>>1725172
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
Which actually doesn't debunk labor exploitation, it's mostly a criticism of non-market economies.

>>1724785
Sowell is an idiot and doesn't know shit about Marxism his only critiques seem to be levelled at the soviet system and not the actual theory nor did he address other strains of marxist thought

>>1725142
> he would own the pizza until the point of sale

Ownership is something that is claimed. A worker acknowledges in an employment contract that they do not own what they produce, that they are entitled to a wage cannot just fuck off with the product and sell it elsewhere. It's a transfer of ownership. Wage for the labour and wage for the product of the labour. A good is sold for more than the wage price because of all of those factors I listed that you seem to be ignoring.

If an employer adds nothing though then the employee would clearly just make their own product and sell it themselves, no?

> These can be considered labor. You're adding value. Some might argue it's more parasitic, but it's still labor if it adds value.

So an employer contributes and adds value, so then they are not exploiting the worker because their contributions allow it to be sold at the higher price? Seems like a contradiction in your own theory.

This is why the LTV is so shit though, because how do you quantify the employers contribution vs the employees if not between the wage the employee accepts and the final sale price that is accepted in a transaction?

...but even so value is subjective & so wealth is only created when people reconcile their competing claims. I mean straight up, a chair isn't made until the employee and the employer agree on the conditions for which the chair will be made, they can't just say after it "oh you sold it for more than I got that's bullshit!" just as in the camera example.

Then again most of these phrases have no substance behind them "add value"...what is "adding value"? If I sell a model plane already constructed have I added value? What if someone wants to put it together themselves? To them I've just reduced the value...but added more labour....what if I take a hammer to it?

Value =/= prices, so the idea that differing prices of production and sale = exploitation is bullshit.

>>1725179
What im trying to get to is how marx saw the distribution of income and assets. And the liability the corporation has for its workforce. And consumers, through its products or services.

>>1725202
>If I sell a model plane already constructed have I added value? What if someone wants to put it together themselves?
>what is use value

>>1725202
>A worker acknowledges in an employment contract that they do not own what they produce
>"It's not exploitation! The contract says so!"
(You)

>>1725202
>Ownership is something that is claimed. A worker acknowledges in an employment contract that they do not own what they produce, that they are entitled to a wage cannot just fuck off with the product and sell it elsewhere. It's a transfer of ownership.
That's transfer of ownership of labor, rather than the product of your labor. The capitalist owns the product of your labor at all times.

>If an employer adds nothing though then the employee would clearly just make their own product and sell it themselves, no?
The owner adds the capital required. That's the issue.

>So an employer contributes and adds value, so then they are not exploiting the worker because their contributions allow it to be sold at the higher price? Seems like a contradiction in your own theory.
It's not, because you keep ignoring the capital part of capitalism. The extra value the capitalist offers on top of his labor is his capital contribution. So he gets paid in proportion to his share of ownership rather than his share of labor.

>This is why the LTV is so shit though, because how do you quantify the employers contribution vs the employees if not between the wage the employee accepts and the final sale price that is accepted in a transaction?
Which is why Marx confusingly has two values, price and use-value. You really can't blame Marx for LTV. He didn't invent it, and he did his best to improve it.

>...but even so value is subjective & so wealth is only created when people reconcile their competing claims. I mean straight up, a chair isn't made until the employee and the employer agree on the conditions for which the chair will be made, they can't just say after it "oh you sold it for more than I got that's bullshit!" just as in the camera example.
I keep saying the difference is the worker owned the product of his labor in your example. When you hire someone, they don't own the product of their labor. They instead simply sell their labor.

>>1725209
You can capitalize on the DIY? Intrinsic learning value. Therefore use value can increase or decrease according to pre assembled or not assembled. If not assembled it could only be estimated after assembly according to the craftsmanship? There is not a guaranteed use value but a range that may or may not be an ideal interpretation.

>>1724702
Sure many historians look at things in the context of class struggle, but that doesn't mean they accept historical materialism.

>>1725202
>Then again most of these phrases have no substance behind them "add value"...what is "adding value"?
Apparently you think businesses are impossible because businesses spend their time increasing the value of things. That's where profits come from.

>If I sell a model plane already constructed have I added value?
Because you sold it.

> What if someone wants to put it together themselves? To them I've just reduced the value...but added more labour....what if I take a hammer to it?
They buy an unassembled plane from someone else, assuming a competitive market. No, you don't add value to it unless the plane is otherwise unavailable for purchase unassembled. This is why Marx added "socially necessary labour time" to LTV.

>Value =/= prices
Why don't you define value instead of just arguing about something but not actually presenting an argument. Marx tried his best to assign a utility use-value goods. Anti-Marxists said basically price is the only quantifiable value because of marginalism.

>so the idea that differing prices of production and sale = exploitation is bullshit.
Marx's logic that value =/= price is precisely why there's exploitation.

>>1725257
Im guessing value and marketing correlate?

How is marketing handled in a marxist state?

What about creating a sector to service or out together the unassembled planes? A niche market, that's what its called right? How would that add value to the product itself?

>>1725204
>What im trying to get to is how marx saw the distribution of income and assets.
You're not doing a very good job.

Contrary to popular belief and modern day "communists" Marx thought a worker should be entitled to the full product of his labor. He didn't say you should redistribute things easily. That's something different, a welfare state.

Marx thought capital assets should be socially owned by the proletariat. He thought the workers should be the owners, and the workers should have a say in determining how capital assets were allocated. That's not to say that the proletariat couldn't delegate the sorting out the details to someone, but that someone would be by the will of the proletariat, and if the proletariat felt like that person was not working in their interests, since the proletariat owned the capital, they could get someone else.

>And the liability the corporation has for its workforce. And consumers, through its products or services.
They don't have the much liability. Corporations are profitable. If your corporation isn't profitable, it's a failure. Workers would be consumers, and the corporation would exist for the sake of worker-consumers, and be controlled by them as well, so they'd be even more liable. Capitalist corporations are mostly liable to shareholders, or owners. There are also actual existing commercially successful cooperatives where the workers are owners.

You're arguing against Marx but you don't seem to even have a basic grasp of the concepts espoused by him in Kapital.

>>1725166
> at first it was a log that was carved into art being sold for $20 now it's just another log...

Saying it's a $20 log is meaningless until someone actually buys it for $20. Like I said at the time it was being carved logs may have been bought for $10....by the time the log is carved do we call it a $10 log or a $20? All this proves is that value is subjective, so when can there be exploitation if the worker and the employer might not even be sure of what the log will eventually sell for. It might not ever be sold hence time preference.

> it is a fundamental aspect of capitalism that isn't really debatable.

The interpretation & meaning very much is.

> always produce more than they are paid

'Produce more" is a meaningless term, it makes too many assumptions. Produce more what? Price?

In a factory, the bulk goods produced fluctuate in prices, so the worker agrees that according to their time preference they would prefer a set wage now rather than the potential of more/less future goods, commission based employment does exist though.

The value of the labour is reconciled before the good is produced, the price of the good may change after it is produced but once produced, they have nothing more to do with the final sale price. Just as a log cutter after selling the log, has nothing more to do with the final sculpture. Labour isn't the only factor in the final sale price so why link them?

> And how is small business any less exploitative?

I wouldn't say small less exploitative because I don't believe it is exploitation but it's easier to see employers contribution.

Employer starts a business, puts in the capital, comes up with the product, does the negotiation and trains the employee. Offers the employee a wage, how much % of the final sale price is the employee entitled too? How much is the employer entitled too? Why doesn't the employee just make their own pizza and sell it for what they believe it's worth?

>>1725276
So marxism is just emphasized via personality and character of the workforce? Spiritual marxism?

>>1725271
>Im guessing value and marketing correlate?
Do you mean marketing like advertisement? Marketing is meant to drive up demand.

>How is marketing handled in a marxist state?
Marxism isn't a blueprint for a specific type of state. You could have a market socialism if you want marketing. Or you could just send people to gulag if they don't like what you make.

>What about creating a sector to service or out together the unassembled planes? A niche market, that's what its called right? How would that add value to the product itself?
The value is added from the transformation of the raw materials to the airplane parts. If someone wants to buy the batch of parts, then they buy the parts for the appropriate value, because your labor is no longer "socially required labour time" and not adding value.

Or rarely, it might be cost less to assemble all the parts and disassemble some, which means the labor wasn't wasted, because it saved some costs somewhere else.

>>1725239
> The extra value the capitalist offers on top of his labor is his capital contribution.

Not necessarily, as in the small business example employers can contribute much more than just capital. There is a division of risk, a division of time preference, and employers and employees can divide labour too.

> Which is why Marx confusingly has two values, price and use-value. You really can't blame Marx for LTV. He didn't invent it, and he did his best to improve it.

This is why I can never really agree with Marxists, focusing so much on price, ignoring so many other factors, it's like trying to warp reality to fit a narrative rather than trying to understand reality and human behaviour.

>>1725257
> Apparently you think businesses are impossible

No I just think throwing the phrase "add value" around without context makes it meaningless.

> Because you sold it.
That wasn't the question.

> They buy an unassembled plane from someone else, assuming a competitive market. No, you don't add value to it unless the plane is otherwise unavailable for purchase unassembled. This is why Marx added "socially necessary labour time" to LTV.

So socially necessary labour time would be like offering water in a desert sort of thing?

> Why don't you define value instead of just arguing about something but not actually presenting an argument. Marx tried his best to assign a utility use-value goods. Anti-Marxists said basically price is the only quantifiable value because of marginalism.

My own views on what value actually is, has no weighting on whether someone is logically inconsistent by confusing prices with value. Value is subjective simple as that, trying to quantify it before a sale, at the time of sale, after the sale, is meaningless if all parties agree to the interaction. If we're trying to produce a morally consistent result voluntarism is important to consider.

> Marx's logic that value =/= price is precisely why there's exploitation.

It's a very appealing idea to have but it's pretty obvious that prices constitute a multitude of information besides subjective preference.

>>1725285
>Saying it's a $20 log is meaningless until someone actually buys it for $20.
You're the one that started off with the logs and giving them prices.

>Like I said at the time it was being carved logs may have been bought for $10....by the time the log is carved do we call it a $10 log or a $20?
You call it the capital investment and the transformed commodity for sale.

>All this proves is that value is subjective, so when can there be exploitation if the worker and the employer might not even be sure of what the log will eventually sell for. It might not ever be sold hence time preference.
You do realize that in the real world, employers actually try to be profitable and don't just arbitrarily try to sustain losses. Not only do they try to do this, it's expected and a regular thing for them to be successful on average, even if they fail in a few cases. I think you need to learn how capitalism works anon.

>In a factory, the bulk goods produced fluctuate in prices, so the worker agrees that according to their time preference they would prefer a set wage now rather than the potential of more/less future goods
You can empirically observe the value of that through futures trading.

>The value of the labour is reconciled before the good is produced
Where do you even get this from? Product of your labor means you labor, then you end up with product. The capitalist hedges that the product of the labor will be worth more at time of sale than the investment he puts in.

>Just as a log cutter after selling the log, has nothing more to do with the final sculpture.
Because he's selling the product of his labor. What are you even strawmanning?

>Labour isn't the only factor in the final sale price so why link them?
The logger already got paid his portion for his labor when he sold the product of his labor. Labor doesn't inherently add value, only socially require labor does. That's why Marx's LTV refers to "socially required labour time"

>>1725311
> The logger already got paid his portion for his labor when he sold the product of his labor. Labor doesn't inherently add value, only socially require labor does. That's why Marx's LTV refers to "socially required labour time"

There's the crux of the point I was trying to make, the worker already got paid X for the portion of their labour. The employer now owns the product and tries to sell it for Y. Just because X and Y are different doesn't mean that there is some magical extracted value/expropriate labour that hasn't been reconciled between the Employer/Employee.

>>1725285
>Labour isn't the only factor in the final sale price so why link them?
Meant socially necessary labour time, but the point is still the same. If it wasn't socially required by someone else, you didn't do value adding labour. You just did something that wasn't value adding labour.

>Why doesn't the employee just make their own pizza and sell it for what they believe it's worth?
Because of capital. Why do you keep pretending capital doesn't exist?

>>1725294
>Not necessarily, as in the small business example employers can contribute much more than just capital.
Extra value. An owner can contribute both capital and labor. But apparently you think if you keep ignoring capital it will go away.

>There is a division of risk, a division of time preference
Which an opportunity afforded by capital.

>This is why I can never really agree with Marxists, focusing so much on price, ignoring so many other factors, it's like trying to warp reality to fit a narrative rather than trying to understand reality and human behaviour.
You keep refusing to explain yourself, you just keep repeating you disagree. Apparently you hate capitalism too because capitalists and capitalist economists focus so much on price. It's economics anon. Prices are a focus.

>>1725322
>There's the crux of the point I was trying to make, the worker already got paid X for the portion of their labour. The employer now owns the product and tries to sell it for Y
They got paid for their labour, not the product of their labour. There would not be exploitation if the worker could sell the product of his labor instead of only his labor.

>Just because X and Y are different doesn't mean that there is some magical extracted value/expropriate labour that hasn't been reconciled between the Employer/Employee.
For fuck's sake, it's capital. The book is fucking called Das Kapital. The laborer sells his labor instead of the product of his labor because he doesn't have the capital to keep the full product of his labor. You don't even know what Marxism is fucking about.

>>1725302
>No I just think throwing the phrase "add value" around without context makes it meaningless.
It adds some sort of value, which is why people work. People wouldn't value work if work had no value. This is very simple anon. This is not communist magic, this is basic capitalist economics.

>That wasn't the question.
It has value because you sold it. The fact that you sold it is evidence someone valued it.

>So socially necessary labour time would be like offering water in a desert sort of thing?
It's the almost opposite. Jesus fucking Christ. It means the least amount of labor on average, there may be variation from case to case, to get the job done, and society, someone in society, has to value that labor. That's what socially necessary means. It means that the labor must be needed somewhere by someone, and the value is determined by only the amount of labor that is required for it on average, not more than that even if you decide to do it in a way that's half as efficient.

>My own views on what value actually is, has no weighting on whether someone is logically inconsistent by confusing prices with value. Value is subjective simple as that, trying to quantify it before a sale, at the time of sale, after the sale, is meaningless if all parties agree to the interaction. If we're trying to produce a morally consistent result voluntarism is important to consider.
And if everyone had access to capital it would be fair more or less. But they don't.

>It's a very appealing idea to have but it's pretty obvious that prices constitute a multitude of information besides subjective preference.
So you want to bring up an arbitrary definition of value, complain that value doesn't match your definition of value, and whine about it.

>>1725325
I'm not ignoring capital, I'm trying to explain all of the other factors besides capital because surely Marxists have already heard before that "the employer contributes capital" which they do and I have used in a few of my analogies.

> For fuck's sake, it's capital. The book is fucking called Das Kapital. The laborer sells his labor instead of the product of his labor because he doesn't have the capital to keep the full product of his labor. You don't even know what Marxism is fucking about.

I'm not talking exclusively about capital though, I'm talking about whether an employee is being exploited or having "value" expropriated, whether an employer contributes or not. Of course capital is an important part of that, I'm merely adding onto that argument of employers contributing capital.

> It adds some sort of value

It's the assumption of what that value is that I'm criticizing with the whole focus on prices.

> And if everyone had access to capital it would be fair more or less. But they don't.

Doesn't this just come back to the argument of dividing the pie vs baking new pies? We are born into scarcity, there's nothing fair about a world of scarce resources and infinite wants/needs. Having capital isn't immoral, having resources isn't immoral, others not having resources doesn't mean people that do are acting immoral, it's the natural state of man, the question in all of this is how to satisfy the wants/needs of people in a world of scarcity. The justification for expropriating the means of production/property is because there are haves and haves nots, no?

> So you want to bring up an arbitrary definition of value

It's not arbitrary, value is subjective simple as that. What I see is Marx sectioning off one part of an equation and focusing solely on that, or at least Marxists do. Focusing on the wage and the final sale price while ignoring so many other factors.

>>1725433
>I'm not ignoring capital
Yes you are, and no you don't mention kapital.

>I'm talking about whether an employee is being exploited or having "value" expropriated, whether an employer contributes or not.
And a significant part of that is capital or opportunities afforded by capital.

>Of course capital is an important part of that, I'm merely adding onto that argument of employers contributing capital.
But it doesn't matter. Most things can be divided into labor or capital.

>It's the assumption of what that value is that I'm criticizing with the whole focus on prices.
It's economics and you're being a retard. Of course prices are relevant to an economic topic.

>Doesn't this just come back to the argument of dividing the pie vs baking new pies?
You eat pie. That's consumption. Capital is used to transform something to add value to it. That means someone wants the transformed thing more than the untransformed thing, since you don't seem to understand what value is. You can generate more capital with capital too, and capital too has a value to someone. It has a value high enough that someone is willing to trade you something to make it worth your time.

Why do you assume that if a capitalist owned a pie they'd make more pies, but if a socialist owned a pie they would not make more pies? Both of them are going to make as many pies as it benefits them.

>We are born into scarcity, there's nothing fair about a world of scarce resources and infinite wants/needs.
Needs are not infinite. The quote is not "to each according to their wants"

> Having capital isn't immoral, having resources isn't immoral, others not having resources doesn't mean people that do are acting immoral, it's the natural state of man, the question in all of this is how to satisfy the wants/needs of people in a world of scarcity.
Property rights are a social construct. It's not natural.

>>1725433
>The justification for expropriating the means of production/property is because there are haves and haves nots, no?
It's because people should try to understand if the current social construct of the way we recognize one another's "property" is self-serving of beneficial. A prole should not recognize bourgeois definition of property if it does not benefit the prole. Property is not a natural right, it's probably hard to get that in your head, but it's a social construct and a legal right. That's why they say "possession is 9/10s of the law". If it was natural it would be self evident.

>It's not arbitrary, value is subjective simple as that.
Yes, it is arbitrary, because you refuse to accept any definition of value. Even when one works around LTV to humor you and accept your subjective value you reject it anyways because you don't like how it's used. You subjectively value something. You are objectively willing to give something for it. That's where the value comes from. That's actually how LTV works, but you reject LTV because you don't like it. LTV is about, "I would work X hours to trade it for something you spend Y hours on" And if you're willing to accept the product of X hours or less, you have a voluntary trade.

>What I see is Marx sectioning off one part of an equation and focusing solely on that, or at least Marxists do. Focusing on the wage and the final sale price while ignoring so many other factors.
Blame your own extremely simplistic examples. All those things you listed simply represent a cost, especially when you just hire someone to do it for you. It would probably benefit you to read up on the difference between M-C-M and C-M-C but I know you won't because you refuse to learn the most basic of terms. All of those things you mentioned simply represent some sort of average cost to someone.

The problem is you don't even have a firm grasp on capitalist market economics, and you fight with basic principles of capitalist market economics

I don't think the humanities in America are obsessed w/ Marx in the least. Maybe Europe. Or maybe Americans taking certain philosophy courses, but then it's just because he was such an influential figure. So academia is kinda obligated to pay attention to him.

File: 220px-Николай_Кондратьев.jpg (12KB, 220x295px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 220x295px

>Kondratiev>>>Engels>>>>>Marx

File: hehe maybe next time kid.gif (2MB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x200px

>taking economic advice from somebody who never worked a day in his life

>>1725832
He was explaining how capitalists never worked a day in their life.

>>1725851
i've been telling myself that humans are hypocrites at heart these past few weeks and so far all examples have proven me right

>>1725855
He wasn't a capitalist though, he was friends with a guy whose dad was a capitalist and he saw how they got money for not working and was so salty about it he wrote a book.

>>1723575
Gosplan.google.com

>>1724999
commies on 4chan are also stupid and won't get what they want

>>1724278
its a theory of class progression. A country cant be marxist. Thats the point. Asstickler.