/lit/ - Literature

>>13524500
“We” don’t. Only irrational ideologues and rootless kids do.

>>13524500
the virgin communist manifesto vs the chad grundrisse

Because you are fundamentally wrong.
Stop making these threads, blowjack poster.

>>Historical materialism isn't true

>>13524517
First stop tripfagging, bucko

>>13524517
>Because you are fundamentally wrong.
>Stop making these threads, blowjack poster.

>is wrong on every point
>keeps making thread
based and redpilled

>>13524526
>marx is wrong on every point
>we still talk about him

>>13524520
it's reductive

>>13524520
Implying the opposite by greentext when you don’t have the intellectual capacity to make a case for it is a cop out and it only makes yourself look like a pseud and cement the fact that historical materialism is an unfalsifiable “theory” that belongs in the garbage dump of history.

pic related

>>13524551
>Implying the opposite by greentext when you don’t have the intellectual capacity to make a case for it is a cop out and it only makes yourself look like a pseud and cement the fact that historical materialism is an unfalsifiable “theory” that belongs in the garbage dump of history.

>>13524524
TOP KEK
BUTTERFLY IS A MASSIVE FAGGOT AND SHOULD STFU

>>13524562
le epic btfo lmaoo bruh

>>13524562
i can sense your butthurt

any publicity is good publicity, thank you based seething /pol/cuck, maybe we'll let you live once the revolution comes

>>13524517
>Because you are fundamentally wrong
>no arguments given
Leftist reasoning at its peak

He's a good writer and while I agree on all your points besides the LTV isn't true (I know it's not a popular opinion, but I think it's misunderstood), the claims Marx makes about class conflict being the engine of history are rhetorical exaggerations which clearly have some truth to them, and most importantly historical materialism, while clearly not true in the sense of being able to explain everything, is able nonetheless to explain a lot - and its explanations are far more empirically confirmable and less speculative than kind of idealist explanation. As far as understanding any oppression, I think materialism kicks idealism's ass. That is to say, one who explains american slavery and its as a result white supremacist ideology rather than the material benefits the slaveholders had - and the ideology of white supremacy being the effect rather than the cause - is going to have a more accurate theory of oppression. There are two options for a leftist who sees oppression as a negative thing to be fought against: one can be infantile about oppression, and blame it on cruelty and evil rather than give a materialist explanation, or one can follow Marx.
Furthermore the classes and class interests laid out by Marx are distinctly felt by people, and he is the most prominent theorist of them.

>>13524551

based popperposter

>>13524617
I’ve given it before. Referred you people to books and videos for the kiddies, but that’s not your agenda here. You’re only here to stir up shit and dog whistle ore /pol/tards in here to keep you company,

>>13524645
What good is it to refer people to stuff that is also wrong? Do you hope to accumulate such an inordinate pile of factually and logically incorrect rhetoric under the misguided notion that it will reach a point of critical mass, like a star, and somehow ignite into truth?

Are you practising a form of dialectical alchemy? Do you consider your endless inanities the nigredo prior to the lapis philosophorum? Do you think you are going to transform shit in to gold by compacting ever more shit together?

ANSWER ME

>>13524668
>What good is it to refer people to stuff that is also wrong?
HA
It’s not wrong. Capitalism doesn’t work. Come to your senses

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fOqqRD1t47Y

>>13524698
Are you Autistic? Are you a Landian who has modelled himself on a machine? Or have you drunk so deep from the font of Nietzsche that you idea of eternal recurrence is a 24 hour news cycle?

Is this how you choose to live? Every day posting the same things, making the same assertions, never learning, never adapting, an endless replay that you somehow derive satisfaction from? How static must your spirit be. How without fire or joy you are, ugly troll. Lover of the stillborn and listless.The apotheosis of the 4chan stereotype hunched over the keyboard smashing refresh.

Your ideologies are as dead in the womb as your latest abortion. Never will they amount to anything.

Come. Say something wrong once more. Post a link to words which are not your own. Repeat the cycle and affirm your worthlessness.

>>13524698
>Capitalism doesn’t work.
>looks around
It's working. Just not with the outcomes you prefer.

>>13524722
Yack yack yack. You don’t know me well at all. I learn and change all the time. Can’t see anon ever doing that, but “conservatives” are know. For being stalwart pigheads

>>13524500
>LTV isn't true
Because I said so
>Rate of profit isn't falling
Because I said so
>Marx's doomsday predictions still haven't come true
Smoking didn't kill me yet
>Class conflict isn't the engine of history
Because I said so
>Historical materialism isn't true
Because I said so
>Believed in phrenology
This part points to the true purpose behind this thread

>>13524551
cringe
>>13524541
saying that it's wrong and should be thrown away rather than that it simply needs to be modified is what's reductive

>>13524564
you need to be over 18 to be here

>>13524500
You could ask the same thing about Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Sowell. History proves most economists wrong. Funnily enough, Keynes, who is among the biggest targets of ridicule, has turned out to be among the most prescient.

>>13524730
are we on the same planet

communism is just repackaged Utopian which is repackaged christian notion of paradise

>>13524730
Uh, what? Even at recent American conservative conventions speakers have been talking about the myriad ways capitalism is failing us. I'm not just talking about the short-sighted disregard for our environment, but the effect it has had on social relations and morality as well. Sure, people are making money, but at too great a cost.

>>13524722
>drunk so deep from the font of Nietzsche
>How without fire or joy you are
> Lover of the stillborn and listless
>The apotheosis
>The apotheosis
>The apotheosis

Politics aside, you write like a cringy faggot.

>>13525185
You post on an anonymous site yet you are still so scared. You can be so much more. There is still enough time for you to change.

>>13525165
whoa...

>>13524562
ok retard

>>13524698
just cause the world isnt inherently perfect doesn't mean we gotta run out and try your childish idealistic bullshit

>>13525118
well hell sure is taking a hell of a lot longer to fail the his ideas

>>13525213
shut the fuck up

>>13525355
Stop saying to me what you really want to say to your dad.

>>13524551
It's Popper who got thrown in garbage dump by his philosophy of science colleagues. Nobody gives a shit about his demarcation criteria. Even the anti-Marxist retards ditch him once they learn that moderns economics are also pseudo-science according to them.

>>13524517
Take more hormones Fred

>>13524500
Also, at this point if you're not a historical materialist you're basically a fairytale reader.
>>13524516
This post is true though.

>>13525617
Source for pic?

>>13524605
That's right. Everytime these seething alt-right make those posts, it attracts a little more people to Marx. This in case OP isn't a Marxist who use reverse psychology.

>>13524621
For your information, tendency of the rate of profit to fall is also true.

>>13524551
based

>>13525340
It does actually. We keep on this trajectory and we die.

>>13524500
http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/259/2/20090522_nb_casp_full_indexed.pdf

>>13524668
/pol, and Hitlerians and general, are cucks. No sarcasm. Capitalism beat them (more productivity for the allies during WWII because of their more liberal version of Capitalism). Then Capitalism literally prohibited Hitlerism in western europa.
However, hitlerians still defend Capitalism. That's pretty fucked up.

>>13526290
>No methodology
>No source
Lol

>>13524500
Isn't LTV basically truism? Only specific derivatives of the theory can be engaged.
Wasn't his theory on failing rate of profit merely an explanation for empirically observable phenomenom other big economists also observed and tried to explain?
Isn't it bit too soon to expect his domsday prediction to come?

>>13526324

>>13526324
here you go:
>https://thenextrecession.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/maito-esteban-the-historical-transience-of-capital-the-downward-tren-in-the-rate-of-profit-since-xix-century.pdf

>>13524500
Marx was right to say capitalism is gay and stupid. His alternative would only work for cloistered monks who opt out of functional society and agree to share all property communally, while taking vows of poverty and chastity and living a selfless life. Ironically, the only way communism works is in a hyper-religious setting dominated by men who hate economics and love spirituality and virtue.

Unfortunately the ranks that dominated communism historically have been full of selfish, atheist materialists who seek power by using collectivism as a blunt instrument against dissidents.

>>13526340
That graph is disingenuous because it becomes at WWII where the profit rates were abnormally high. Profit rates were abnormally high because the amount of interventions to stop wages from rising, price in inflation and demand for war materials. I ask you this, if the rate of profit is falling why must Marxists lie about it and be deceptive?

>>13526328
>Isn't LTV basically truism?
For me the better explanation, but i might be wrong, is that people were so brainwashed for centuries being told that it's the market which determines the value of products, that now they literally have forgotten one of the basic principle of humanity, that it's labor which gives value to products.

>>13526353
>His alternative would only work for cloistered monks
Doubt that, communism is the natural form of production for humans. However it certainly breaks up above certain scale.

>>13526356
Of course, we lie. Why won't we? We are evil after all. Only through deception can we win.

>>13526356
Here's the longer timeline, if you want.

>>13526372
Capitalism is the truth. Exchange value. Strong hierarchy between humans. A class society. Most importantly, money is absolutely natural.
But we lie.

>>13526364
>communism is the natural form of production for humans.
Humans always like owning property, and their motivations are centered around their families, not communes, private property is more natural for nearly every sort of business.

>>13526397
Define always please.

>>13526385
If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Kliman calculate profit after tax?

>>13526397
You sound like a mutt. Back in the days there wasn´t as much alienation that people could justify owning productive assets privately or that such arrangement would be effective.

>families, not communes
What if I told you there used to be much larger families?

>>13526425
>What if I told you there used to be much larger families?
sure, but humans aren't ants, communism requires self-less worker ants whose lives revolve around productivity for utilitarian purposes.

>>13526439
You realise the majority of people today are workers? Transitioning to a communist system wouldn't change anything for them except that the fruits of THEIR labour wouldn't go to the guys at the top.

>it's not selfless to work 8 hours a day to make someone else rich
>it's selfless to work 4-5 hours a day to make you and your community rich

>>13526439
When you have a small community, that´s how it works. Setting up markets, private stocks and private lands doesn´t work if you have close relations with your community.

>>13526447
>drastically changing man's relation to his work, business and family, removing fiat money and replacing it with Global Comrade Rations
>forcibly stealing all private businesses from their owners
>wouldn't change anything except workers would be getting their [fair share platitudes]
Right, reminds me of African niggers talk about appropriating white farm lands for da greater good

>>13524500
do you believe in neuroscience? because phrenology is neuroscience for babies.

>>13526466
>Right, reminds me of African niggers talk about appropriating white farm lands for da greater good
You mean like that time when the niggers collectivized their lands, alleviated famine and turned their country into net exporter of foodstocks?

>>13526466
>forcibly stealing all private businesses from their owners
Yes? Business owners are a small portion of the population lmao. You were making the human nature argument, remember?
>drastically changing man's relation to his work, business and family, removing fiat money and replacing it with Global Comrade Rations
That's not communism. Communism is where everything is free.
>wouldn't change anything except workers would be getting their [fair share platitudes]
How is that wrong? The only difference between a capitalist system and a communist system is who gets the money. Workers who actually generate the money or owners who sit around in their yachts all day.

>LTV
True and one of the most well evidenced laws in economies.

>Rate of profit isn't falling
Yes it is.

>Marx's doomsday predictions still haven't come true
Marx didn't make "doomsday predictions", he predicted that capitalism is fundamentally unstable and will always eventually go into crises (true) and there will be revolutions (true).

>Class conflict isn't the engine of history
Wrong, its demonstrably true.

>Historical materialism isn't true
Wrong, its demonstrably true and has never been refuted.

>Believed in phrenology
Doubt it.

>>13526485
>Communism is where everything is free.
lol

>>13526277
Its biological Leninism, it’s inevitable. Good thing you’ll die by the millions each cycle.

>>13526485
>Communism is where everything is free.
If everything is free no one would work except people who enjoy certain hobbies/leisure activities as work.
Or do you mean you get entitled to certain goods depending on your labour hours. Like a ration system?

>>13526505
... that's literally it.

>>13526313
Hitlerians are typically natsoc you brainlet lmao @ ur lyf

>>13526511
Marx's idea was that we wouldn't have division of labour so you can do a multitude of different jobs in one day, unlike working 8 hours doing menial labour like we do now. Also we won't be alienated from our work anymore so we will go to work on our own volition. We will have a lot of leisure time too since all of the finance jobs and others will become redundant.

>>13526489
>True and one of the most well evidenced laws in economies.
LOL. Cockbutt did not prove it.
>Yes it is.
Nope. Most evidence showing it has faulty methodology or the wrong definition of profit.
>Wrong, its demonstrably true.
What about certain aristocratic classes going after eachother and starting a war?
>Wrong, its demonstrably true and has never been refuted.
Popper?
>Doubt it.
>It is now quite plain to me — as the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify — that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses’ flight from Egypt (unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a nigger). Now, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow’s importunity is also nigger-like.
Full letter: http://marx.libcom.org/works/1866/letters/66_08_07.htm

>he does incidentally confirm, by saying not that the Russians are Tartars rather than Slavs, etc., as the latter believes, but that on the surface-formation predominant in Russia the Slav has been tartarised and mongolised; likewise (he spent a long time in Africa) he shows that the common negro type is only a degeneration of a far higher one.
Full letter: https://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1866/letters/66_08_07.htm

>>13526511
>If everything is free no one would work except people who enjoy certain hobbies/leisure activities as work.
Well, Marx came from Germany. There seem to be a bit of clash of values between Angloids and Germans.

>Or do you mean you get entitled to certain goods depending on your labour hours.
That's socialism. Once there's enough shit to satisfy all the needs, that's communism.

>>13526353
>His alternative would only work for cloistered monks who opt out of functional society and agree to share all property communally, while taking vows of poverty and chastity and living a selfless life.
Retard
>Communism is quite incomprehensible to our saint because the communists do not oppose egoism to selflessness or selflessness to egoism, nor do they express this contradiction theoretically either in its sentimental or in its high-flown ideological form; they rather demonstrate its material source, with which it disappears of itself. The communists do not preach morality at all, as Stirner does so extensively. They do not put to people the moral demand: love one another, do not be egoists, etc.; on the contrary, they are very well aware that egoism, just as much as selflessness, is in definite circumstances a necessary form of the self-assertion of individuals. Hence, the communists by no means want, as Saint Max believes, and as his loyal Dottore Graziano (Arnold Ruge) repeats after him (for which Saint Max calls him “an unusually cunning and politic mind”, Wigand, p. 192), to do away with the “private individual” for the sake of the “general”, selfless man. That is a figment of the imagination concerning which both of them could already have found the necessary explanation in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher. Communist theoreticians, the only communists who have time to devote to the study of history, are distinguished precisely by the fact that they alone have discovered that throughout history the “general interest” is created by individuals who are defined as “private persons”. They know that this contradiction is only a seeming one because one side of it, what is called the “general interest”, is constantly being produced by the other side, private interest, and in relation to the latter it is by no means an independent force with an independent history — so that this contradiction is in practice constantly destroyed and reproduced. Hence it is not a question of the Hegelian “negative unity” of two sides of a contradiction, but of the materially determined destruction of the preceding materially determined mode of life of individuals, with the disappearance of which this contradiction together with its unity also disappears.

>>13526526
Explain how high risk jobs would work (oil field workers) and low-skill shitty jobs (janitors/garbage men) ?

Why would I go volunteer my time doing high-risk or menial shit if everything is by default free? Elaborate how production works and how people acquire goods for living and for leisure.

>>13526527
>Cockbutt did not prove it.
You don't need Cockshott to prove it, its proven by supply and demand and it inherently refutes subjective value.

>Most evidence showing it has faulty methodology or the wrong definition of profit.
The marxist definition of profit is the only right definition so.... And you don't even need marx or studies to prove it, just look at outsourcing. Why are companies in the first world outsourcing to the third world? Well obviously because the rate of profit has fallen in the first world.

>What about certain aristocratic classes going after each other and starting a war?
Marx never said they would. In fact, marxism says capitalist classes will go to war because they want a bigger share of private property.

>Popper?
He just said it was unfalsifiable. Didn't say why, didn't mount an argument (and too be honest, I don't even think he knew what dialectical materialism was, he just didn't like the USSR and was a liberal so he made up some "gotcha" to try and fool people) and his criteria or what or what isn't scientific isn't taken seriously by any scientist today.

>Full letter
Its pretty clear that he was making an insult in poor taste.

>>13526554
there's a similar critique levelled against the util. how can a util be found to be a productive entity with no material base, and modelled on a reductive model of a human? marx doesn't properly explain production, but neither does locke and classical liberal economics.

>>13526566
This is the most important thing to explain when offering an alternative to Capitalism and private ownership modes of production.

If you don't know how the conclusion would operate or look like how can you chart an accurate path to it?

>>13526551
kek
I guess the irony eludes you.

>>13526565
>its proven by supply and demand
LOL. Are you joking?
>The marxist definition of profit is the only right definition so....
In the head of Marxist. In reality it's different.
>Why are companies in the first world outsourcing to the third world? Well obviously because the rate of profit has fallen in the first world
It's because it's cheaper to do labor there. It does not mean that the rate of profit has fallen.
>Marx never said they would. In fact, marxism says capitalist classes will go to war because they want a bigger share of private property
If people of the same classes are going after eachother how does that prove class struggle?
>Its pretty clear that he was making an insult in poor taste.
It's not the only time either. Marx had Wilhelm Liebknecht go under a phrenological examination in order for Liebknecht to join Marx's communist inner circle.

>>13526577
>This is the most important thing to explain when offering an alternative to Capitalism and private ownership modes of production.
They are offering socialism, with communism being the foggy utopia at the end, when there's no more scarcity. In socialism the production is much easier to explain.

>>13526620
I could see Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand make a similar case for individualist/free-market bullshit eventually leading to the "best possible of worlds" if only people become "more capitalist" and get free-the-invisible-hand correctly. blablabla

economic idealism is gay

>>13526632
>economic idealism is gay
man and his morality are more important than any economic system he occupies.

>>13526554
We would prioritize maximizing safety and minimizing effort by cutting needless production, cutting productivity, and improving technology. Right now better technology only gets introduced when there's no sufficiently cheap labour available.

>Why would I go volunteer my time doing high-risk or menial shit if everything is by default free?
As long as this problem exists everything is not free. You need to work, and some people would prefer 1 hour of working on an oil field to 5 hours of working in an office.

>>13526592
>If people of the same classes are going after eachother how does that prove class struggle?
"Sky being blue doesn't prove that honey is sweet, therefore honey is not sweet. Libtards destroyed"

>>13526632
Of course people set ut their utopias to explain ideal societies they are aiming for, but that's Irrelevant.

>>13526644
>As long as imperfections exist in the world communism won't exist
Sounds about right.

>>13525412
Cringe

>>13526313
There is nothing wrong with defending a working system. It is disingenuous to imply Capitalism and Fascism need be mutually exclusive.

>>13524668
I love this post desu

>>13526675
No, that's not what I said. As long as the human society and its productive forces are not sufficiently developed, communism will have to involve an external compulsion to work.
>But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
>In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly — only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

>>13526687
Capitalism, when the rate of profit decrease, after the constant increase of productivity due to the utilization of better and better machinery in the last decades, needs to use different levers of action in order to maximize profit.
Mass immigration, with the constant flow of extra workers it put on the workforce market, is a key weapon of the Capital for making more profit by putting constant pressure on the labor price.

Thus, a racialist political system without mass immigration is not in today's Capitalism best interest.
That's why Capitalism always promote mass immigration. Not because they want to destroy whites. That's a side effect, and also a positive effect for the Capital, since white are too rebellious as a working class. Capitalism promote mass immigration, not because jews want to destroy white Christians. But because it simply allows the Capitalist class to make more profit.

>>13525617
Retard

>"marx is not utopian"
>he is the definition of utopian

>>13525617
>at this point if you're not a historical materialist you're basically a fairytale reader
Or maybe, just maybe, you subscribe to a religion and reject any arguments to the contrary because of your deep bias
I'll go with that one

>>13526952
Well, his answer to how will society look like after capitalism was something akin to "dude, I don't have a crystal ball lmao", he spend most of his time writing about capitalism.

>>13526978
Didn't he believe that everybody in this post-capitalist society would effectively be a renaissance man who would create things according to his needs? Or was that Trotsky

>>13526933
>gdp
>per capita
retard

>>13527012
Which one do you misunderstand? I'll walk you through it

>>13524668
kek

>>13527022
rate of profit is not measured by gdp per capita...

>>13524698
>shits on "you people" for referring you to a video instead of formulating an argument
>posts a video instead of formulating an argument
Classic

>>13526999
That was Marx if I recall correctly.

>>13527042
GDP per capita is the beat indicator of standard of living in a given country. It is effectively measiring the same thing but better in every way because it accounts for variables. I dont know where you got this graph from >>13525617 because I couldnt find anything that even slightly resembles it. What statistic is this measuring? Is it controlling for inflation? I want to know where it came from and how it was studied when, as far as I know, there is no accepted theory of profit that can be measured, Marx's theory of TRPF is just that, a theory.

>>13527092
best*
measuring*
Its late I apologise

>>13527092
>GDP per capita is the beat indicator of standard of living in a given country. It is effectively measiring the same thing but better in every way because it accounts for variables.
Standard of living and rate of profit are two entirely different things.

>>13524500
>Marx's doomsday predictions still haven't come true
>what is WW1
>what is WW2
He wasn't right in everything of course he was quite retarded in many aspects, even Marxists know that.
The part of his work that is considered valuable is the critical part of the capitalistic phenomenon. The rest was just a revival of enlightenment age foolishness, maybe to be a contrarian to romanticism back in the day.

>>13527092
>GDP per capita is the beat indicator of standard of living in a given country
please take a course on economics

>>13527110
I repeat, it is better at measuring genuine material wealth because there is no accepted theory of profit to measure in the first place. I would still like to see where that graph came from so I can understand their methodology.

>>13527118
I'm in year 2 of a bachelors in marketing, what are your credentials? Have you even tried googling what GDP per capita means? Embarrassing.

>>13527131
>I repeat, it is better at measuring genuine material wealth because there is no accepted theory of profit to measure in the first place
What part of "entirely different concepts" haven't you understand?

>>13527131
>I would still like to see where that graph came from so I can understand their methodology.
>>13526351

>>13527092
>GDP per capita is the best indicator of standard of living in a given country
ah yes the famously high standard of living enjoyed in qatar, brunei, kuwait and saudi arabia

>>13526933
I don't know why your retarded self would choose to post unrelated GDP chart, but coincidentally, the growth rate of GDP is also falling

>>13526952
Him and Engels literally spent a lot of time opposing utopians. Engels:
>The solution of the social problems, which as yet lay hidden in undeveloped economic conditions, the Utopians attempted to evolve out of the human brain. Society presented nothing but wrongs; to remove these was the task of reason. It was necessary, then, to discover a new and more perfect system of social order to impose this upon society from without by propaganda, and, wherever it was possible, by the example of model experiments. These new social systems were foredoomed as Utopian; the more completely they were worked out in detail, the more they could not avoid drifting off into pure phantasies.

>>13527131
Looks, it's embarrassing. When i was your age, if we didn't know shit about a subject on the internet, we just shut and read. Lurking.
Now, kids around 20 years old feel they can have an opinion on anything, even if they don't know shit about it.
Also, if they don't know about a subjet, 20 year old just ask on a forum, even if a quick search engine query would do the job.

GDP and rate of profit aren't related at all. Also, GDP cannot be used to describe internal contradiction of Capital. That's what the tendency of the rate of profit is for.

to everyone arguing about the falling rate of profit - the LTV specifically predicts it to fall during long-wave periods of expansion.

>>13526351
>>13527144
Page 1 and I can already see this has a clear bias.
I also see issues with the methodology, and upon further research so have many others. Its apparent that the measure of profit is more complicated than the way Maito treats it, and if the right corrections are made, the decline vanishes completely.
There are multiple issues with his calculations;
Firstly, incoherence. Its not possible to consider self-employed income as profits as isolated from workers income, as many self employed are also workers. He also assumes the self-employed are paid the same as employed workers. It is also incoherent to include housing capital as a contributor to profits when it is not part of capital in his own equation.
It cant be disproved as such, as its still a measurment, but it isnt a good measurment of profits nor is it an indicator of TRPF. As I said earlier there is no accepted model for this measurment. I can easily provide something like pic related. That by taking a few more variables into account tells a completely different story.

>>13527141
One is accepted to be the best measure for standard of living, the other is a highly politicized debate over something that nobody can agree upon.

>>13527152
I said it is the best measure of standard of living not that its completely accurate. It is the best measure for economic well-being that we have. That comes from Economists who do this stuff for a living. Do you have a better one?

>>13527295
Thats good and all, I appreciate your projection about Dunning Kruger effect.
I'm also probably older than you, lol. Not that it means anything in this argument. You seem believe there is some agreed upon measurement for Profit that you seem to think can tell us about standard of living and general happiness of people living in capitalism.
Thats a theory and nothing has shown this to be true.
>GDP and rate of profit aren't related at all
What exactly do you think GDP is? Can you define what you call profit then? We can work from there

>>13527154
I dont give a shit if he talks shit about utopians, lol
Nietzsche talked a lot of shit about the kind of person he himself was and he was completely oblivious to it as well

>>13527442
>It's the best measure of standard of living
It's hardly the best measure of standard of living if it measures that the places with the best standard of living are places that transparently aren't.

>>13527478
Then provide a better one

>>13527092
>GDP per capita is the beat indicator of standard of living in a given country.
what does that have to do with anything?

>>13527492
maybe don't rely on a single metric? GDP/capita ignores inequality, so something like the GINI coefficient can be used to supplement the data. usually rankings of standard of living use a handful of metrics

>>13525118
It's not 'cus OP said so, It's because Carl Mengerk and Eugen Böhm-Bawerk said so in such categorical way that no one after them has been able to defende LTV without making a fool out of themselves.

marxist labor theory isn't true but others are valid

>>13527861
why not

>>13527861
Gobekli Tepe refuted historical materialism, by showing that religion, unlike Marx thought, existed before the appearance of agriculture and class society, and that it actually led to the Neolithic Revolution instead of being a result of it.

It shows that it is not the base that determines the superstructure, but the superstructure that determined the base. This should be as devastating to Marxism as heliocentrism and evolution was to Christianity, but at this point no one cares and most self-proclaimed Marxists are just LARPing liberals trying to shock their parents.

>>13527909
>It shows that it is not the base that determines the superstructure, but the superstructure that determined the base.
No it doesn't. This whole "argument" and especially the use of the world "determines" tells me that you're probably responding to some vulgarization of Marx, and not to Marx.

>Marxists are just LARPing liberals trying to shock their parents.
You either don't know what liberalism is or you trust some dumb cucks from reddit/academia when they say they're Marxists. The latter would be consistent with the previous point about you responding to a vulgarization of Marx.

>>13526974
>Or maybe, just maybe, you subscribe to a religion
That's what he said.

>>13527909
>Gobekli Tepe refuted historical materialism
kek

>>13527909
I'm all in favor for alternative archeology, but that's a bold statement.

We don't know for sure if the site was constructed by hunter gatherers, and if they had external help or not.

Also, for what i know (i still haven't read all of Marx work), Marx criticized the Church, and a specific practice of alienated spirituality. No spirituality as a concept in itself.

>>13524500
I thought that was Patrick Rothfuss.

>>13527948
>>13527965
>>13528021
Cope.

>>13524551
>muh unfalsifiability!
lmao imagine being such a brainlet that you actually like Pooper

>>13528262
I like them because every time they affirm Pooperianism they're inadvertantly cucking themselves:
>Given Popper’s falsificationism, there seems little hope of understanding how extreme simplifications can be legitimate or how current economic practice could be scientifically reputable. Economic theories and models are almost all unfalsifiable, and if they were, the widespread acceptance of Friedman’s methodological views would insure that they are not subjected to serious test. [...]
>Applying Popper’s views on falsification literally would be destructive. Not only neoclassical economics, but all significant economic theories would be condemned as unscientific, and there would be no way to discriminate among economic theories.

So did you just read the wikipedia article or

>>13524754
please dialate, thank you.

did philosophy basically end with marx? it feels like there's been nothing but pseuds since marx

>>13524500
sounds like fake news.
just let it pass by
don't feed the trolls

>>13528838
Yes, or rather it ended with Hegel, because Marx was not really doing philosophy anymore--he only did a critique of the last philosophers and explained why philosophy was now over.
>All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.

>>13528329
based

>>13528329
>Not only neoclassical economics, but all significant economic theories would be condemned as unscientific, and there would be no way to discriminate among economic theories.
guess it depends on what is meant by "significant," but Marx's LTV is falsifiable (and therefore scientific) by Popper's/Lakatos' criteria.

>>13529034
marginalism presents value as unobjective and thus unfalsifiable and that's what pretty much all economics is rooted in nowadays

>>13527517
>maybe dont rely on a single metric
Isn't that exactly what you're doing? A faulty one at that?