Do the ideas of this man have any relevance in today's world,

>>1873547
Yes, also LTV was not his idea, LTV was invented by someone else and is classical economics, LTV is not disproven by marginalism, and LTV explains diamonds and water, not disproven by diamonds and water.

>>1873551
Wasn't LTV his big stick? If not him then who?

>>1873551

LTV is bullshit

> LTV explains diamonds and water, not disproven by diamonds and water.

This is basically saying a broken clock is right twice a day therefor a broken clock is not useless.

His infrastructural determinism remains the basis of most anthropological macro theory.

>>1873561
I'm not well read how is that different from a dialect materialism?

>>1873547
History is a record of class struggle. Nobody can seriously study the subject without that in mind.

>>1873558
LTV has been part of economics since at least Adam Smith. It's part of classical market economics.

>>1873560
>This is basically saying a broken clock is right twice a day therefor a broken clock is not useless.

No it isn't. LTV is meant as an explanation of diamonds and water, yes it's often regurgitated that marginalism proves diamonds and water when LTV doesn't.

LTV is an attempt to explain value based on roughly what is considered a fair market value. Marginalism is microeconomic exchange value.

Marginalism saying you're so hungry you'll pay $7 for a bag of pretzels on an airplane because you get that much utility from it. LTV is roughly saying, even if you'd pay $7, and it satiates your hunger, it's a fucking rip off and not worth $7, because you know the normal price on the competitive market is $1, and that's how much it should be worth, and they probably have sky high profit margins from having a limited monopoly on the airplane.

Marginalism and LTV describe different things.

"My kingdom for a horse" is an an early acknowledgement that different systems of value like marginalism and LTV are often at odds. A kingdom, crown jewels, lands, fiefdoms, peasants, is normally worth more than a horse, but in that specific situation, marginalism dictates a horse is worth more than his kingdom. "My kingdom for a horse" would be entirely uninteresting or nonsensical if one does not acknowledge both systems of values.

However, people would rather be ideologues against LTV because LTV, which wasn't even invented by Marx, is seen as Marxist.

I've never seen anyone refute Das Kapital.

>>1873568
It's not dialectical. Marvin Harris took Marx's theory and kicked dialectic out because of reasons I can't remember (it's in the introductions of Cultural Materialism and also The Rise of Anthropological Theory) and instead focused on feedback loops calling it techno-environmental, techno-economical determinism to be precise. It still uses the Marx's principle of an infrastructure that determines societal structures and superstructures and most worthwhile anthropological theories that deal with social and cultural evolution, like Robert Carneiro's circumscription theory, fall back on it as well.

>>1873589
Dude, who the fuck does point by point refutations of dense books? I don't think even die-hard atheists do that with the Bible.

You've probably seen ideas within it refuted at different points, but I doubt you'll see everything within it refuted.

>>1873598
I've only seen many of the core arguments "refuted" in roundabout ways, like labor exploitation doesn't happen because marginalism proves Marx wrong, or by ignoring other parts of the argument, like ignoring Marx's material conditions and then saying work is voluntary.

>>1873547
Essentially all of his predictions of capitalism have come true. It could convincingly be argued that his assessment of capitalism is more relevant today than it was in the middle 19th century.

Wealth is being accumulated in ways never thought possible. Humans are being increasingly striated into employees and owners. The selfishness of the bourgeoisie is creating a mass of restless former proletarians whose jobs have been taken by a machine or moved overseas. Capitalist parties are hiding behind progressivism and nationalism to distract the working majority from their own material problems.

The entire world is approaching the conditions of 19th century London, Paris, or Berlin. The only difference is that technological advances in food production mean that the working class is now obese rather than starving.

>>1873603
Maybe, but that's beside the point. It's pretty unreasonable to expect someone to refute something like Das Kapital.

That said, I'll seriously never understand the polarized devotion associated with this man. He's either totally wrong about everything ever forever, or he's a goddamn prophet of a new religion (including people ready to shout heresy... I'm sorry, "revisionism").

>>1873547
More than ever. Still less relevant than Mussollini though.

>>1873612
>Mussolini
>relevant

Nah. Sorry, the backup dancer of the Axis didn't spawn shit for intellectual tradition.

>>1873611
Most respected economists lived through a large portion of the Cold War

>>1873611
>prophet of a new religion
If you understand Marxism and all its postmodern offshoots as a secular apocalyptic religion, current events make a lot more sense.

>>1873611
How is that beside the point?

>>1873611
He's like the original anti individualist, althought I do believe that he changed some of his ideas when encountering Max Stirner

>>1873646
So he isn't. That would be pre-Marx utopian socialist/communists, which he was one of, but hardly the first of. Marx modified it by saying communism would not magically work itself out, you would have to change the material conditions to make communism work. He was in other words, saying it's too soon for real communism, communism won't work in the world as it is.

>>1873661
No he isn't*

>>1873661
So what is the intermittent step then?

If LTV is ""debunked"" where does the value come from then?

>>1873759
Socialism

>>1873769
It comes from one's ability to accumulate money, including income not derived from labor, in order to exchange with the owner of a good, who may have obtained the goods through means other than labor. In marginalism, exchange value is based on your ability to aquire income for yourself and spend it, not the ability to perform labor or exchange with a laborer.