Is Marxism the opiate of the intellectuals?

>>8407159
If you only consider people with art degrees intellectuals.

Pretty much yeah.

Part of the reason I think is that Marxism offers critique of the status quo, whether or not it is correct.

Most people who are pro-capitalist tend to not give a shit about anything negative about capitalism, because they think the system is moral.

>>8407166
They consider "the system" amoral, not moral.

>>8407168
No, I'm pretty sure most conscious pro-capitalists think it's the most moral system, given it's supposed adherence to individual rights, and the moral superiority of trade over coercion.

>>8407172
I've met quite a few pro-capitalists, and they're probably the least moral people I know. Saying shit like "if you can't get a job, you deserve to starve",

>>8407190
Yeah, but being an asshole as different from believing that a political system is moral. These things can exist simultaneously in one person.

>>8407197
My point was they've got pretty shitty moral compasses in my experience.

It's their pseudo-rational back-door to an eschatological promised land

You can't critique capitalism without stepping in some kind of marxist tradition, even if you aren't intentionally doing so. If you aren't criticising capitalism, you are not questioning the fundamental system of how our society works. So if you are someone that wants to think outside of the box, you need marxism.

>>8407205
disgusting

>>8407207
You can pretend it's not the truth but even bourgeoise intellectuals that don't actually want to change the system are generally at least somewhat versed in marxism. Anything else is just intellectually lazy.

>>8407212
I have no problem with that, but to imply all critiques of capitalism need Marxism is silly and steeped in its own dogmatism.

>>8407205
>You can't critique capitalism without stepping in some kind of marxist tradition

Sure you can, and non-Marxist socialists do that all the time.

There's a reason mixed economy welfare capitalism is the predominant political system in Europe, and it's not because of Marxist Communists.

>>8407217
>There's a reason mixed economy welfare capitalism is the predominant political system in Europe
Top fucking kek, I didn't know sanders posted on /lit/.

>>8407217
Do you realize that Marx and Engels were co-founders of the workers rights movement? The shift towards "moderate", mass-party socialism took a few decades to really take place. Without the communists (at the time the word wasn't as charged as it is now) there would be no welfare-capitalism, at least not in the same form.

>>8407233
I'm just stating facts. It's got nothing to do with that SocDem Jew.

>>8407236
In America yes but in Europe a good portion of the mixed economy systems were started and inspired by the Third Reich.

File: tips Christian morality.jpg (21KB, 474x528px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 474x528px

Marxism is the opiate of the envious.

To anyone without ressentiment, it's pretty disgusting.

>>8407216

Well, not all critiques but if you want to fundamentally question the system. I'm not saying you have to literally quote Marx but he did the first and probably most comprehensive critique of capitalism in history, it's really hard to not re-iterate at least some of his concepts. Not to mention that ever leftist intellectual of the last 200 years has been influenced by Marx in some way.

>>8407239
>started and inspired by the Third Reich.

*Otto Von Bismarck and Imperial Germany, who in turn was inspired by the worker's movement that went on strikes and used welfare as a form of political appeasement to gain power

>>8407239

What? The nazis basically just copied certain concepts from the SPD and merged them in some kind of faux-socialism. It's true that the nazis started certain policies which we still use today, but without the communists, the nazis wouldn't have used any "socialist" policies.

>>8407237
>Americans

Living on welfare in Europe is living in poverty, the meagre pittance you receive is taxed straight back off you, meanwhile Italy and Finland are near total bankruptcy trying to support their public sector and pensions.

>>8407159
Reminder to everyone to source arguments.

>>8407253
>Living on welfare in Europe is living in poverty

Well, that's a completely different discussion isn't it?

I live in Northern-Europe, and our welfare is usually around 1000 Euros every 2 weeks, which is more than enough to survive on, depending of course on what kind of standard of living you had before you went on welfare.

>>8407258
You also have 25%+ youth unemployment and a 15% of your country's GDP is from a shadow economy.

But you did it Reddit :^).

>>8407265
Yeah, and 130% of USA's GDP is debt owned by China.

What the fuck is your point?

>>8407172

It's not because free trade or capitalism supports individual rights that it's good, it's the opposite : it's because there are individuals that free trade is necessary.

Indeed, I cannot ask for protectionism, as if everyone were to do so, there would be nothing left to protect from trade, since there would be no trade anymore, as everyone is preventing it via protectionist measures. Hence, only free markets are alright ; and it just so happens that free trade is the best economical system.

>>8407294
muh NAP

File: aron.jpg (14KB, 267x400px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 267x400px

>>8407255

>>8407294

"Free" trade in the real world has never existed and is just a synonym for rich countries strong-arming poor countries, ask some third world countries about how "free" they are to trade. (Not that trade regulations will necessarily change that)

>>8407299

You can't oppose that principle : you cannot legitimately wish to hurt someone else without contradicting yourself, as, wanting yourself to be happy, you cannot abide by one rule, and yet deny that same rule for others. Therefore, no one can do violence to another, otherwise the maxim upon which that violence is done is contradictory both the other maxims you abide by, and in itself.

>>8407308
>You can't oppose that principle

I can and I do, all the time. Aggression is useful to stop people from causing harm in the world, regardless of whether that harm is someone committing murder and you defending yourself, or if it is a multi-national corporation literally polluting a river.

>>8407305

I never claimed we have perfect free trade in the West. We do not. And, free trade doesn't strong-arm poor countries ; everyone is better off because of it. It increases the live qualities of those in poor countries, like Mexico who go an increase of over 400% investments since NATFA, which translates to job for families who se earnings translate to their well-being, even if they earn slave-wages.

>>8407312

It's not the same : those people themselves break the rule, and therefore act in a contradictory fashion. It is only legitimate to act upon the same rule they are as to show them the ultimate conclusion of their contradictory behavior. Since they themselves wished they lived in violence, they surrender any and all right they had to not receive it proportionally to the amount that they wished they could use.

>>8407314
I wouldn't call Mexico a third world country, have you looked at some the trade deals with african countries? We just export the crap we don't want and in return provide some loans and raid their natural resources. Free trade has for example completely decimated the african clothing industry.

>>8407317
Yeah but you see, polluting a river isn't considered violence under the NAP, and neither is charging 50000 dollars for a cast because you broke your leg, hence the NAP is inefficient at fixing social problems of that kind.

>>8407331

Yes, third world countries often benefit from advantages in trade agreements per the WTO, and it creates a lot of exports towards them. But that means a lesser price for the exported goods, and it could mean a creation of jobs otherwise not available to them.

>>8407204
This is the perfect answer.

>>8407351
It's a bit lazy since that applies to any poltical ideology that isn't entirely focussed on pragmatism.

>>8407340

Never said I was an idiot like Ayn Rand. And charging 50000 for a cast (under the American system), is a form of violence, since the medical industry benefits from privileges and protectionism, which artificially increases the price of their services. The market is often the most efficient solution, and it is too in that case.

>>8407348
> and it could mean a creation of jobs otherwise not available to them.

But jobs are destroyed because their local economy can't keep up with the globalized market and the economies of scale. Also, a lot of times the imported goods are luxury goods which just go to the local upper class which gains their wealth by exploiting the rest.

>>8407360
>which artificially increases the price of their services

Nice evasion, but the point is that anyone could charge that price in a completely free market as well.

>>8407314
>muh trickle down economy
Let the 3rd world countries feast on the leftover crumbles from the bread you just made with their resources and still feel like you're morally superior.

>>8407368

No, not anyone could just charge what they wanted, because free markets allow for innovation and competition. If you ask for a price that is not at the equilibrium, you'll be out of business, because your competitors will to have a higher part of the market. You have an incentive as a business to make profits. Asking high prices or unreasonable prices won't make you profits. Therefore, if you do such practices, you'll lose money, so you won't.

>>8407363

Yes, but you were talking about textile goods, whose production is dirt cheap for anyone but third world countries. That the wealthy in third world countries gained their wealth through illegitimate means is another subject.

>>8407384
>You have an incentive as a business to make profits. Asking high prices or unreasonable prices won't make you profits.

Forming a cartel with backroom-deals which aren't regulated and then asking unreasonable prices because people don't have a choice will give you even bigger profits.

>>8407380

Trickle down economy is a meme which no economist supports. Literally, no economist. Free trade =/= trickle down economy. You seem to assume that wealth is a zero sum game, but it's not ; you can create wealth. Everyone gets richer under free trade. You can't deny that. Anyone today is richer than a serf in 12th century France.

Also, most statistics on the wealth of poor people in third countries are not complete, because they do not take into account the value of their land, house, etc. because they don't own it (because of unjust laws), even though they have owned it for generations, and work it as if they owned it.

>>8407391
Exactly this, the final stage of an uregulated capitalist market is monopolies.

>>8407241

Thread should have ended here.

>>8407384
Ah I see.

So why can't poor inner-city kids go to Harvard then, if your thesis is correct?

>>8407391

This isn't free trade and should be harshly punished. I literally said that was part of the reason the medical industry was bad.

>>8407389
>Yes, but you were talking about textile goods, whose production is dirt cheap for anyone but third world countries.

How does that change my point that jobs are lost because they can't keep up? And third world countries can't keep with anything that isn't down to manual slave labour or natural resources.

>>8407355
Communism takes it to an extreme though in that it doesn't just want different laws; communism wants an utter upheaval of the fabric of society and really of human nature itself, in the transformation of which is salvation from the hell of capitalism that they use as a proxy for their own unhappiness.

>>8407399

Because they are poor and the State doesn't fund universities (or funds them in a wrong way). I don't see the problem with this. Community college exists just for that reason. You literally prove my point. You go to Harvard because they have ''prestige'' (which is akin to monopolistic competition) and because employers often act irrationally based on that prestige. It's not because the education at Harvard is better than at your community college. Quantum physics remain the same everywhere you go.

>>8407396
>Everyone gets richer under free trade. You can't deny that.
Yes I agree, but I also think using that as a justification of the current economical system is extermely black and white. The distribution of wealth and rescources in the world is extermely skewed even if everyone is better off.

>>8407406
Civilazation has been around for like what, 3000 years? Capitalism has been around 300 years. We managed to get by without capitalism just fine for 2700 years. I don't buy buy the argument that a non-capitalist society (doesn't necessarily have to be communist) goes against inherent human nature.

>>8407413
But then you agree with me that prices can be irrationally inflated, based on no legitimate economic reason at all, so a bone cast can actually cost 50000 dollars under specifically irrational circumstances.

It's still a social problem that can't be fixed by adhering to the NAP.

>>8407413
>It's not because the education at Harvard is better than at your community college.
You don't think private universities that have way more rescources than a state driven community college can offer a better educational program?

>>8407403

They don't lose jobs since the jobs are re-localized in these third world countries (comparative advantages). What they lose is their industry, since it isn't as efficient as the industries of the richer countries. What this means is not loss of jobs, but job creation, more often than not. Manual labor makes these country richer. That's why I cited Mexico as an example, because it's literally what happened. They got the manufacture jobs from North America, but lost part of their service industry and agricultural industry. The result? More investment for them, more jobs, and wealth creation overall. Even if you're an African country, you get richer from free trade, even if at a slower rate.

>>8407417

Wealth gets created because people have incentives to create it ; if you redistribute too much to fix the inequality, wealth won't be created as much, as you'll reduce the incentive, which means there won't be wealth creation anymore, and even fewer people will get rich, those who already have the money. Having tax rates above a certain threshold (30%ish) will have negative impact on the price of goods, which gets felt by the poor more than the rich (since the poor use most of their money), and prevents them from getting richer. It's a self-defeating maxim.

>>8407423

Some people act irrationally, but overall, the average act rationally, even if each individuals has some biases, which might explain why some industries succeed while others fail. Yeah. But you can't force people to believe what you want them to believe, so there's not much you can do outside of pointing it out.

Also, I never claimed the NAP could solve problems. It doesn't. It's a maxim by which we must act if we wish to be moral.

>>8407424

Actually, I don't, no. The reason is that the subject is the same. The periodic tables of elements doesn't change based on where you study. If anything, community college might be somewhat better because there are less students in classes, which means you get to spend more time with the professors. Also, don't forget most professors at Harvard might have begun teaching in a community college or still are.

>>8407440
>It's a maxim by which we must act if we wish to be moral.

Yeah but it is designed to create a just society, e.g a society that actually solves problems, and there's a monumental amount of problems that cannot be solved by adhering to it.

I mean, just take for example the tragedy of the commons, which is a classic example of where something like the NAP would just fall on it's knees flat, because it would be in every individuals interest to allow their animals to graze on a field, even in the face of the fact that if everyone does the same, there would be no field left to graze on.

>>8407436
It's completely shallow to suggest this current system is anywhere near the ideal when we have an extreme overproduction based on the consumer market we have in the west while there are people in other parts of the world that can't even get enough resources to survive.

>>8407424

Besides, most of the resources these universities have are spent on research and not the students, unlike community colleges who have an incentive to spend it on the students to compete with their private counter-parts.

>>8407442

Yeah, the tragedy of the common requires State involved, and I don't see how it goes against the NAP. The tragedy of the common (as a consequence of absolute unregulated trade) is the result of a contradictory maxim which needs to be fixed so that it doesn't end in a contradiction.

Also, being just, simply means that you are just. It isn't supposed to provide any solution. If a solution, albeit good in its consequences, is unjust it mustn't be adopted. Like Kant pointed out, being moral doesn't mean being happy in the slightest.

>>8407436
You are operating from the maxim that creating wealth is inherently good, which I (and modern marxism) don't agree with. We are creating so much wealth which is unneeded and just polluting the planet and in creation of that wealth a large percentage of the population is being exploited in unfullfilling labour.

>>8407445

Tyrannical governments don't invalidate free trade. Also, what overproduction? A free market doesn't waste resources, because it means wasted profits ; the production is consumed. Outside of protectionism, I don't see any overproduction problems (like supply management in Canada/US)

>>8407462
Do you realize that like half of the food of industrialzed countries is being wasted? We just throw away half of the shit we buy even though it still works. The planet is literally being filled with waste. That's not to due protectionism, that's inherent to capitalism.

>>8407462
ust look at the projected changes in our whole ecosystem to see that overproduction is one of the worlds biggest problems.

>>8407469
https://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/2014/04/and-the-best-waste-performing-country-in-europe-is-estonia/

One! fucking person in an industrialzed country produces half a ton of waste a year. If you don't think that's insane I don't know what is.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/dec/14/toxic-ewaste-illegal-dumping-developing-countries

Another article just on waste from electronics.

>>8407459

Wealth is by definition good (in the sense that it makes people happy or at least gives people pleasure), not that it's morally worth anything.

Wealth =/= money. Money is a proxy by which we measure wealth, it is not wealth. You are wealthy if you have a family which brings you happiness, perhaps even wealthier than someone who has millions upon millions of dollar, but no family. It's just that you can't calculate the happiness generated from having a family. There's no way you can oppose wealth creation.

Moreover, the market creates new solutions to problems, which help people have better lives. You have countless drugs to cure you if need be, something which you didn't have 200 years ago, where if you go sick it was pretty much good luck.

Also, what exploitation? Free trade doesn't exploit people, tyrants do, and most third world countries live under one.

>>8407469

The agricultural industry upon which the food industry is mainly based is one of the most protected industry in the west. The WTO has a whole section of exceptions just for agricultural goods which allow you to violate basic free trade principles. The reason you see agricultural goods being dumped is because of supply management, not free trade.

>>8407476
Uh, the production of wealth in an economic sense means the production of material goods. I realize it's not the same as money but your idea about wealth being about happiness is ridiculous in a discussion about econimics.

I consider being poor when the wealth exists but isn't fairly distributed exploitation.

opiate of the pseud more like
sounds smart enough that you can use it to outmaneuver most plebs but it's simple enough that the 110-120 IQ BA of Arts class can understand it
t. member of this class and Political Economy student

>>8407475

These seem like State-funded recycling programs, which would explain why they aren't efficient, as there's no incentive to uphold them and there's no competition on the subject. I'm all for a carbon tax, and the like, to promote the internalization of the costs of productions and for the advancement of innovative business practices based on less waste, but you can't just force them to be green through the State.

Also, the article from the guardian literally talks about illegal and unjust practices.

>>840748
To add, the production of weapons and military equipment is generating wealth. Do you think they make people happy?

>>8407384
What's to stop all the business from colluding?

>>8407493
Yes? How is that even a question, do you realize how many jobs are dependent on that manufacturing.

>>8407484

No reliable economist will say wealth is just material goods. Wealth is what you subjectively desire. People desire love, care, etc. These are forms of wealth. Friedman literally talks about a marriage market, and love seems far away as a material good as I can think of.

The reason wealth is measured by money, is because, like Posner says, it's just the easier way.

Also, why is wealth not distributed fairly under free trade? People work for who they want, people are free to set-up their businesses, etc. It's only normal they get the benefits from their production.

Absolutely, Marxist-Dialectics = $cientology-tier voodoo

>>8407494

The State and its duty to render justice. Just like what stops a murderer from killing you.

>>8407493

Well, I don't see the problem of producing arms, as long as it is to support justice, and not unjust regimes like Saudi Arabia. If arms are used justly, then they only hurt those who deserve it, and it creates happiness, yes. I'd rather my police officer be armed, than not.

Marxism has evolved beyond the point where it can be connected with orthodox Marxism-Leninism, it just denotes a tradition. Modern thinkers fundamentally reject key doctrines like historical materialism. Hell, this isn't a new development, it started as soon as the bearded duo got popular. Is a reform socialist a Marxist?

>>8407355
no. just no.

>>8407546
>Is a reform socialist a Marxist?

Well, they are if they don't reject historical materialism and it's method.

But reform socialists are clearly more interested in harnessing the power of capitalism for their own ends, just like everyone else it seems to me.

>>8407476
"Wealth" is a purely unscientific word that means pretty much noting beyond what you want to impute into it and should be avoided as much as possible. When most "economists" today talk about "wealth creation" they are simply referring to inflation of stock and real-estate prices to redistribute spending power towards the holder of these assets.

Also the pharmaceutical industry is a gigantic scam, most drugs being developed are just to cure diseases which are purely the result of modern living conditions which wouldn't be a issue if people just lived and ate healthier. Also billions of dollars are being waste towards false hopes trying to find cures to stuff like cancer which is fundamentally impossible... we know what causes a lot of this cancer but people won't change their lifestyles.

The whole notion that keeping people alive indefinitely is a good thing means in the not so distant future we may be forced to have gigantic buildings filled with unconscious zombie like corpses being keep alive on machines.

>>8407462
I guess if you naively believe in Says law (i.e. if supply creates its own demand, there is no problem of insufficient effective demand and overproduction) overproduction isn't possible... but this just shows you have a naive grasp of the importance of effective demand, credit, prices, and investments. You seriously need to study heterodox business cycle theories if you want to see were you're getting things wrong. Veblens business cycle theory in "The Theory of Business Enterprise" shows how the continued decline of profit margins which is embedded in real world economies has to result in a lower capitalization leading to general liquidation and a financial disaster.

http://www.unilibrary.com/ebooks/Veblen,%20Thorstein%20-%20The%20Theory%20of%20Business%20Enterprise.pdf

>>8407516
When you have a private for profit weapons industry which capitalizes off of warfare it's going to be in their interests to promote conflict. Notions like "justice" are cute but they don't maximize return on investment for share-holders.

Try reading "The political economy of U.S. militarism" by Ismael Hossein-zadeh if you want to see how fucked up this whole industry is:

http://www.kritisches-netzwerk.de/sites/default/files/Ismael%20Hossein-zadeh,%20The%20Political%20Economy%20of%20U.S.%20Militarism,%20Palgrave-Macmillan%202006,%20303%20pages_32.pdf

>>8407562

It's not because a term is unscientific, that it doesn't refer to a reality. I didn't say anything contrary to what you stated. Wealth is measured with things we can actually measure, like GDP, and not with things that are difficult to measure (or impossible), like feelings of fulfillment, and the likes.

And on the pharmaceutical industry, it's not all a scam, but, yes, some part of it is ; because, again it's not free trade. It's protectionism and lobbys at their finest. They re-arrange the laws to suit them, especially intellectual property related laws. The point though, is that honest competition and innovation creates solutions to medical issues. There's no denying we have better drugs now than 200 years ago, where you could be prescribed opium to cure all sort of mental illnesses.

Moreover, if people live unhealthy lifestyles, what's wrong with that? They made their choices and feel the consequences of those choices on their bodies ; they allow for a market to solve their problems, which creates jobs and wealth. What's wrong? If people want to research a cure for cancer, what's wrong? They can invest their money where they desire. And I don't see why a cure couldn't be something possible, although I'm not versed in medicine.

Life is a good thing, and if retirement homes need to be created, again, it means a new market and new business opportunities. I, again, don't see what's wrong.

Yes, I ''believe'' in Says law (it's not a matter of belief, it's scientifically true) ; but this doesn't exclude that other variables might change things, I don't deny that ; but, in the same way, from an ideal point of view, Says law is absolutely true. Overproduction shouldn't happen. And financial disasters are necessary for an economy to stay healthy, like Schumpeter pointed out : because it shuts down those who are already well-established, it levels the playing field, and allow for those who can bring innovations to compete fairly. If you prevent those, you prevent the possibility of long-term free trade. That's why you shouldn't bail out corporations, even if the shareholders really want you to. Otherwise, you stagnate your economy, and prevent the benefits of free trade from being truly seen.

Yes, but you can't truly know what people will do with weapons. You can't prevent their production because some part of the military would want to use them unfairly. You can't know if they would want to universalize a contradictory maxim or not. They are innocent until proven guilty. Besides, I'm not an advocate for US militarism ; I'm opposed to it, it's disasters after disasters, but you can't decide the future guilt of someone based on his past actions, only his past guilt.

>>8407503
>Also, why is wealth not distributed fairly under free trade? People work for who they want, people are free to set-up their businesses, etc. It's only normal they get the benefits from their production.

The distribution of "wealth" today is largely just the result of capitalization off of [intellectual and physical] property titles not actual production. Production and work really has very little to do with "wealth" distribution in practice. Marx and most of the classical economists [Smith, Ricardo] didn't really bother to analyse "wealth" distribution much because they were interested in the process of industrial production and profit/wages instead of rentier incomes which they thougth would probably be legislated out of existence in the future [obviously that didn't happen because of the global Anglo-American ruling class].

Interestingly St. Simon in 1821 [in his Du système industriel] outlined an industrial system that was to be based mainly on equity financing (i.e. stocks) rather than debt (i.e. bonds and bank loans). The idea was to make industrial banking a kind of mutual fund, so that claims for payment (e.g. the value of savings) would rise and fall to reflect the economy's actual earning power.

The forms of industrial banking that developed in Germany and central Europe in the late 19th century differed from the short-term parasitic Anglo-American collateral-based trade credit and mortgage lending system... but ever since World War I global financial practices have been more extractive than productive and based upon the degenerate Anglo-American model of parasitism.

>>8407598

Rent-seeking is not encouraged in most countries. In Canada, despite it's overtly bad economic polices, rent-seeking corporations are penalized for their attitudes with higher taxes (which are paid back to the corporations if they enact dividends or produce wealth).

Rent-seeking is not an immoral behavior, but should not be encouraged since it is by nature parasitic ; it should be penalized, though not outlawed, through taxes, because such behavior is based upon abusing the law (a State service).

Also, I don't get the problem with loans. It allows people with little to no actual wealth, to create some wealth even though they started with nothing. Few people would have houses weren't it for banks, as few people could afford them without mortgages. Mortgages are a service, and aren't rent-seeking. If you're a bank you deal with risk, you need to invest your money into people or corporations that actively produce things, otherwise you won't get your investment back. It's not, at least in principle, parasitic. Certainly, certain banks abuse their powers and seek rent, but it doesn't mean the practice of loans is bad. Also, loaning isn't mutually exclusive with setting up mutual funds.

And you haven't said why such redistribution under free trade is unfair (i.e. immoral).

>>8407597
It looks like you have been sucked in to much by the public relations industry. It's always important to remember what it means to maximize share-holder value in actual concrete practice. You have no idea what extent business strategy can go to unless you study how real world corporate sabotage works and how business manufacturer demand for their products. If you want to maintain a happy naive liberal outlook on how the world works don't bother.

Also Says law only makes sense in a barter economy, it has absolutely no basis in a monetary/credit economy. In the real world firms have actual budget constraints which Says law doesn't take into account... when business enterprises face financing constraints, the scale of output that a firm can achieve is limited by its internal sources of finance combined with the quantity and terms of its external sources. The link between the former and the latter is the assessed value of the firm's collateral. The firm's history of profitability and reinvestment, the assessed value of which is summarized as the value of the firm's collateral, thus enters into the determination of its financial capacity, which facilitates and limits what it can undertake in terms of production.

>>8407202
what a plebian understanding of morality. Just because a conclusion is unintuitive to your leftist mind, it is 'shitty'? Sad!

>>8407633

Then tell me, show me where you think I'm wrong on shareholders. I am mostly a Kantian classic liberal, and you might say I'm naive, but, as I said, I'm talking from an ideal point of view. Economic models work, I don't see how anyone could deny that, it's mathematically correct.

People commit crimes and do wrong things, I agree. Individuals commit murder or rape. Corporations and shareholders can also have dubious practices. But, that's why the State renders justice. If the State doesn't do its most essential job, then obviously things won't work out.

I don't see how Says law only works in a barter economy, as anything can be used for a proxy of value (money). The model works perfectly fine. If you've done mathematics, you know I'm not wrong, look up Walras laws. I even believe Mill said something close to it. It shows that budget constraints mean the values of excess ive demand must sum to zero.

>>8407624
Canada's whole [non]economy is based upon rentier incomes and natural resources. Canada isn't even an independent nation state it's a total joke controlled by the globalists in The Business Council on National Issues which is a shadow government composed of an executive committee of 150 top CEOs - for managing the common affairs of Canada's corporate elite. Justin [a.k.a. neoliberalism with a human face] Treadu is fully subservient to the same interests who controlled the Harper regime e.g. the C.D. Howe Institute, the Fraser Institute, and the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies. The second the housing bubble implodes Canada the whole house of cards will come crumbling down.

To a firm loan-capital is more vunerable than risk-capital because interest payments from past investments may lead a firm into bankruptcy. A state bail-out is always the last resort for loan-capital. Nationalization of an undertakening transforms the stakeholders into creditors entitled to a fixed rate of interest. Control is taken from shareholders and given to another entity however the capital costs will remain. The two-fold character of labour causes the general contridiction of capitalism but a crisis of overproduction brings out the contridicton between loan-capital (money existing outside the production process) and industrial capital (directly involved in the production process).

>>8407654

Harper had different economic policies from Trudeau, but both are equally as bad. If you think Canada is not indepenent, and controlled by globalist, why do we have a tax rate (combined) of over 50% from the richest? Why do we penalize rent-seeking? Certainly, some loobies are influencial, but we are still independent. And Justin Trudeau is no where near liberalism. If he was, he'd lower the tax rates, destroy the supply management system, remove tax credits and certain welfare programs, deregulate many markets (we couldn't, until recently, sell ugly vegetables), etc. Trudeau is not a liberal.

The causes of financial crises isn't free trade, it's unregulated speculation not based on the reality of production.

>>8407422
Free trade has been around since the dawn of civilization.

File: spoongebob.jpg (18KB, 497x258px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 497x258px

>>8407652
>Then tell me, show me where you think I'm wrong on shareholders. I am mostly a Kantian classic liberal, and you might say I'm naive, but, as I said, I'm talking from an ideal point of view. Economic models work, I don't see how anyone could deny that, it's mathematically correct.

Anything which is mathematically consistent is obviously going to be empirically incorrect since trying to graft fictitious math laws onto the real production process, which develops according to its own dialectical laws. The rate of real technological development and or when nature gives you a crop failures don't care for your mathematical interest claims on profit.

The economy is a nonlinear process and isn't mathematically modellable.

>>8407665
Trudeau is just servicing a different sector of the elite... when you're deficit financing someone is capturing those private gains. Harper was a failure in every goal he set out... no pipelines were built, Trudeau is the only one who can get this done... that's why Bay Street put their confidence in him.

>>8407241
This- marxists are pseudointellectual edgy teens with degrees in unemployment who want to use the state to steal from other people. Of course, the inherent failures of any socialist system eventually happen, as they eventually run out of stuff to steal.

It's shoplifters: the political ideology

>>8407681

There's no ''dialectical'' magic. Dialectics don't have real predictive power, don't explain anything concretely and aren't falsifiable. It's clearly non-scientific. Mathematics allow for all of the above when used in economics. They explain why minimum wages are bad, they can show why the price is what it is and why it is not otherwise, they can predict (albeit ''fuzzily'') the rise or fall of interest rates. It's not because there are a lot of variables, that model don't work. They approximate the truth and in that, they do an amazing job.

Trudeau, like Harper is an empty leader. He has no sound economic policies, no real cultural policies, doesn't care for diplomacy, etc. He just takes photos. And the people elected him, not Bay Street. Bay street didn't come knocking on my door for my vote. People voted for Trudeau because he looks good and Harper was ''mean''. Simple as that.

>>8407707

>predictive power

they don't claim to. read capital

>don't explain anything concretely

wrong, concreteness is precisely what is missing from objectifying empiricism

>aren't falsifiable

see above

>>8407717

Then your claims are unscientific. They don't truly explain things, aren't predictive and can't be falsified, as Popper showed. This invalidate any and all attempts to uncover the laws of economics through Marxist dialectics. Dialectics sound good, but don't speak about the truth.

>>8407159
Is intellectuals the Marxism of opiate?

File: 1275878611607.png (42KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 2560x1600px

is capitalism as good as it gets?

why not use marx to understand some problems with it. then let's use neo-marxists and post-marxists and no bullshit marxists to update us on capitalism today.

okay we have a pretty good idea of capitalism's flaws now.

then you get to decide should we change things or let them go on as they are.

I really don't understand how there is literally anything wrong with this?

can you tell me what's wrong with it?

>>8407253
>this is what Americans actually believe

wew

>>8407239
Jesus Christ, the national socialist government pretty much coined the term privatization. If anything they actively moved away from a mixed economy.

Daily reminder that Capitalism and Socialism are the same thing:

>Both are money-worshiping systems.

>Both rely on mass employment.

>Both heavily emphasize material rationalism.

>Both heavily imply that suffering and scarcity are beneficial and productive.

>Both hate religion of any kind, even when it’s non-spiritual religion - as an integrated part of national identity.

>Both rely on petty gadgets and small quantitative innovation to give the illusion of progress.

>Both heavily discourage novelty of any kind.

>Both heavily reward extraversion and in often times even outright psychopathic/sociopathic/aspd/narcissistic behavior.

>Both rely on social capital.

>Both reject philosophy in favor of the “scientific method”.

>Both heavily emphasize that exertion is useful and moral, and that contemplation is not.

>Both heavily dislike the Arts.

>Both are essentially colonial tools used by one people to subjugate many others.

>Neither has produced one single qualitative change of any kind since they’ve appeared.

>>8407190
how is this not moral? self-reliance should be the height of morality

>>8407946

Ohohohohoh no no no
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

>>8407966

?

File: Sowell.png (81KB, 800x509px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 800x509px

>>8407707
You must literally be mentally retarded. All your useless math has time and time again been proven wrong. I remember watching Fox Business News back in like 06 when Friedmanite "economic experts" were laughing at the notion of a housing bubble as being impossible because of the magic of their math which had finally eliminated all risk.
How do I know the Marxian value analysis is legitimate? I have my methods of transforming prices from the national accounts into values and looking at the structure of the health of the national economy in value terms. You can uncover profit crises emerging long before they show up in monetary terms on any corporate balance sheet. Along with this I can preform a simple schizoanalysis of the bourgeois financial press to uncover unconscious affirmations of the Marxian conception of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall which keeps popping up just in queer phraseology forms.
The reality is debts cannot be serviced if the underlying value structure of the global economy doesn't permit it. What you end up with is a massive build up of trillions of dollars of private and public debts which are mere fictitious paper claims on wealth which don't exist and if they are attempted to be transformed into physical wealth you get disastrous inflation and a breakdown of the system.
If you've been following the financial press recently you'll notice they have been calling for a return to the Nazi finance minister Hjalmar Schacht... the Financial Times, The Economist, etc, etc... have all been attempting to deploy this revival of Schachtian economics: http://voxeu.org/article/macroeconomics-germany-forgotten-lesson-hjalmar-schacht
Hitler simply eliminated the Jews (who were largely petty-bourgeois) on the behalf of reviving the German petty-bourgeois's profit rate which was in a state of crises and resorted to forced labour at the so called "death camps", which were really work camps, as an answer to this debt servicing issue. The financial press is really calling for a revival of forced labour camps when they call for a return of Schachtian economics... this is what Marx would call a modern method of Primitive Accumulation. A global political economy much worse than Stalinism or Hitlerianism might very well be slowly emerging but the addition of modern technological capability of governments will make this global totalitarianism under American financial interests much worse than any 20th century totalitarianism.
Realistically you have two options today... either you have a debt write down (highly unlikely today) or you have a "Schachtian" answer to servicing the trillions of dollars of global debt.
Your completely ahistoric math models tell you absolutely noting about real political economy.

>>8407674
Free trade doesn't equal capitalism.

>>8407674
Muh invisible hand

>>8407760
Neo-Marxism says that capitalism has an inherent tendency to overproduce goods which causes it's crisis' and it can't be solved. As long as you have capitalism you're going to have overproduction, enviromnental polution and exploitation.

>>8408132
Overproduction theories of the business cycle date back to Thomas Malthus and are relatively primitive.
Overproduction was really heavily snuck in by Lenin who was highly inspired by the liberal economist John A. Hobson to explain imperialism as a search for foreign markets to dump productions on to realize their values profitably.
Really there's no one single cause of crises tendencies and Marx was much more nuanced than trying to boil everything down to one cause. Most "Neo-Marxism" is so much weaker than anything Marx wrote because they always try to dissolve everything into one fundamental flaw which can be resolved simply by simple reforms.

>>8408050

>Both are money-worshiping systems

No, simply no, they aren't. One is about to bring in profit, the other is a belif of making shit out of thin air

>Both rely on mass employment

ALL systems rely on mass employment, with some variations... For exemple how much nationalist is a country

>Both heavily emphasize material rationalism

I don't see anything wrong, but it's because it's the first time I hear "material rationalism". What do you mean by that? That some stuff is better than some other stuff

>Both heavily imply that suffering and scarcity are beneficial and productive

It seems that only one actually is fault at this, and yes it's socialism, just look at the recent situation in Venezuela and compare it with another country... Like your own country.

>Both hate religion of any kind, even when it's nom-spiritual religion - as an integrated part of national identity

Actually no you have bigger likelyhood to get bashed for your religion by the government, in a socialist country. While a capitialistic country impose more civil liberties. The decline of religion in capitalistic countries is do other factors excluding the government

>Both rely on petty gadgets and small quantitative innovation to give the illusion of progress.

Kinda true, kinda false. You can see it if you explore the public and private sector and then you compare them

>Both heavily discourage novelty of any kind.

That really depends, it doesn't do that directly, but when as an exemple, a scientific program gets defunded, that could be a disincouragement to novelty

>Both heavily reward extraversion and in often times even outright psychopathic/sociopathic/aspd/narcissistic behavior.

That isn't the direct fault of capitalism, but social-media. Also there is nothing wrong begin an extrovert, how are you going to reach out people if you don't like to be around them?

>Both rely on social capital.

There is nothing wrong with social capital

>Both reject philosophy in favor of the “scientific method”.

I could agree, but again, it isn't pushed by capitalism but rather from people's ideology and extreme desire to be right

>Both heavily emphasize that exertion is useful and moral, and that contemplation is not.

I agree

>Both heavily dislike the Arts.

This is a lie. Defunding arts program isn't a disliking for art. And today the have good reasons for disliking art, since the only shit that sits in a museum is the so "refined" bullshit is "Modern Art"

>Both are essentially colonial tools used by one people to subjugate many others.

Socialist countries tend to be expansionistic, while capitalist countries tend to be interventionistic

>Neither has produced one single qualitative change of any kind since they’ve appeared.

What about the industrial revolution? The Space-Race? And the upcoming Second Space-Race expected to start in 2019 as Russia will start to build the first lunar colony?

>>8408051

Why am I mentally retarded? Mathematics describe the world accurately, and perfectly. Mathematics are the most useful tool in any and all sciences, including economics, because it can describe relations between things objectively. It doesn't allow for subjective biases, and can be tested, and can allow for predictions. Marx cannot do any of that, it's a strawman to conclude that because some guy on Fox News couldn't see the housing bubble, that other economics couldn't. Some did, even neo-classical. It's obvious : you take loans to not invest, but to speculate for capital gain. No actual wealth corresponding to anything is created, just an artificial ''inflation'' of wealth. That can be described in a mathematical model. It's a relation between things, much like gravity can be described using mathematics.

Marx was wrong on value. There's no way you can defend Marx's account of value ; because no value is objective. There is no objective value for water or sport shoes. It only has value insofar as you want those things more than others (or less than others). Value is inherently subjective. Without us or live, water would have no possible value, not even 0, on any scale, because there is no one to desire it, it doesn't mean anything. And the rate of profit doesn't fall.

It's funny you speak of massive debt that is simply based on paper, and then talk about Hjalmar as a solution. Hjalmar did exactly that. When you worked for the Reich, the Reich paid you in bonds, emitted by a corporation of the treasury : they avoided printing money directly, but did so indirectly through bonds, which didn't correspond to actual money. The only reason the inflation during Hitler's period of power didn't cripple Germany was because they were at war. The rate at which inflation was, was higher than during Weimar. It was horrible. And no, the killing of the Jews wasn't for economical reasons. It was purely out of racism. There was no reason to do it, outside of ideology. And what you talk about the Jew workforce in concentration camps is bogus. Most of the workforce was in German industries or semi-slaves European factories (seized Belgian, French, Polish, etc. factories).

The German answer to debt was war, to produce more, and more. Because it kept the hyperinflation hidden, but it was still there and it was mathematically predictable. That's why after the war both Germanies were economically doomed. The inflation took its toll.

Finally, you keep talking about ''unconscious'' affirmations and the likes. There is no ''unconscious'' driving the economy. People make decisions which affect other people. That's all. There's no reason for pseudo-scientific Freudian speech.

Economics are based on human action which is always the same, as long as there are humans. Historicity doesn't affect economics, which is a pure science independent of historical contingencies, much like the laws of physics.

>>8407303
and /thread

>>8408173

>it's the first time I hear "material rationalism"

I was gonna reply until I read this...

I mean your first point doesn't even address what I said, like at all? Money-worship means nothing supersedes money. You pointing out "One is about to bring in profit, the other is a belif of making shit out of thin air" doesn't even relate to this.

>>8408175
Mathematics doesn't describe the real world, its merely a pedagogical tool for grasping much deeper aspects of reality which the puny human mind cannot really ever understand. The central consequence of human activity has been our own reproduction which also changes the whole rules of the game as we develop ourselves.

Approaching value as a mere synonym for individual utility is going to lead you to all kinds of just wrong conclusions when it comes to understanding the actual production process. You might be able to adequately explain the exchange of "goods" that just "appear" in a closed off island economy but all its issues came out in the cambridge capital controversy.
Approaching value as a substance which regulates capitalist production makes things much more clear. Stuff like water falls more under rent theory since its logic largely [beyond transport and bottling costs...] just boils down to capitalization upon property titles issued by the state. Its price comes largely comes from private individuals ability of limiting supply.
The value [not market price] of any commodity is just the abstract socially necessary labour time for its reproduction. The rate of profit is s’/(c + v)
The s’ numerator denotes the output, the net [’] surplus-value [i.e. "profit"] produced -- net of taxes, rents, interest, insurances, losses, and many other expenses -- by means of their productive use of the (c + v) denominator input.
(c + v) sums the inputs whose productive uses caused that net output whose successful sale yields the s’
c denotes the cost of the capital invested
v denotes the wages-cost of the labour-power
(c+v) expands at the rate of s' which is broken back into Δc and Δv and feed back into (c+v)


Anyone who objectively looks beyond simplistic liberal historiography of WWII will find out much more: http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/comlef/cosi/cosiicebie.html

And yes there is an unconscious driving force behind human activity... little "slips of the lip" are not meaningless and need to be critically looked at. The bourgeois financial press if you know how to read between the lines is filled with psychopathological slips of the lip which affirms the central axioms of Marxism

>>8408298

Mathematics do describe the real world. The rational choice model explains, on average, how people act and will act, despite not taking into account all variable and biases people have.

Value is nothing more but individual utility. Please give me an argument as why this is not the case. You mention the labor theory of value, but it's blatantly false. You can work a thousand hours digging the dirt, but the one gram of gold you find at the end won't be worth more because of that to a third party. He'll want it just as much as your competitor's gold who found it after digging for a minute.

Again, even if you increase the input of production at a larger rate than it's output (for the rate of profits to fall), then, the rate of the growth of employment will decline, and things will go back to an equilibrium. Nothing happened.

Simplistic liberal historiography? What's the real historiography of WWII?

And how is there any unconscious force behind human activity when the only thing that can act of have beliefs is a conscience. You can't prove that thesis, and it cannot be refuted. Literally, unscientific.

>>8408340
The socially necessary labour time of reproduction, not the embedded labour time... capitalist production is regulated by competition. It's not the nature of the thing produced but the social relation under which things/services are produced that determines whether labour has been productive of surplus value. An artist-genius working for a capitalist in a quasi putting out system produces surplus value since the price of rare works of art wholly depends on the whims of the buyer due to their intrinsic scarcity and would thus not be regulated by their socially necessary labour time. The wage-labor factory system was the visible dominant mode of production in the 19th century so that's why Marx focused his analysis on it.

It's like you've never seriously bothered to read anything critical of the marginalist theory.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1939/marginal.htm

Your whole notion of "scientific" is just Popperian rubbish, read thomas kuhn

>>8408360
>socially necessary labour time of reproduction

It still doesn't make sense, even if you average things out. An average walmart employee might work 8 hours a day trying to sell or organize goods with great effort and with the average skills required for retail, and yet the value of his work to a third party is still less than the average car salesman even though they're doing overall the same job with the same set of skills and work hours. The only reason anything has value is become someone desires something. Even goods that aren't the result of any labor production, such as the air we breathe or the water we drink have a value.

>>8408625
Retail workers performing the same work but receiving different wages in return is a result of the capitalist structure of price equilibrium.

Value has a dual nature: monetary and socially necessary labour time. Price is the numerical ratio in which commodities of different types are exchanged. Under capitalism this presents itself as the empirical manifestation of value. The value of a commodity can just as easily be measured numerically by the quantity of abstract socially necessary labour time for its reproduction. The discrepancy that arises between the objective current socially necessary labour time of reproduction [which is constantly declining because of technological advancements] and the fictitious capitalized current market value which characterizes actual capitalist exchange causes disproportionalities in the capital structure to arise over time.

If you could acquire a legal property claim over the air you could charge a rent for its usage but that doesn't mean it has value in the Marxian sense just that you can capitalize upon a property title which has a fixed-supply issued by the state. The monopoly rent extracted would just be a deduction from the net annual value generation which is a result of the labour process.