/lit/ - Literature

>>18575771
The Bible

>>18575778
Based

>>18575778
Shit do be the opium of the people

Hello and welcome do my debate on Marxism. I was going to read Das Kapital, but it's very long so I didn't. Anyway here's what I think about the communist manifesto

Nietzsche's works, and, if they were really applied, Stirner's ideas would lead to disasterous consequences for humanity.

>>18575792
>Stirner's ideas would lead to disasterous consequences for humanity
objectivism isn't that big of a deal

lol he got paid to write that shit by rich jews who wanted to make communism happen anyway. they just wanted it to seem organic, marx was not an actual thinker or influential person, he was just a retard hobo kike pawn.

>>18575792
>disasterous

>>18575789
I was going to read your books Zizek but you have written too many so here's what I think abou the communist manifesto

>>18575797
Wow you are so wise. That sounds like a thing which happened

>>18575797
take your meds or fuck off back to /pol/ retard

>>18575812
>>18575826
dilate

>>18575797
>Karl Heinrich Marx was born on 5 May 1818 to Heinrich Marx (1777–1838) and Henriette Pressburg (1788–1863). He was born at Brückengasse 664 in Trier, an ancient city then part of the Kingdom of Prussia's Province of the Lower Rhine.[23] Marx's family was originally (non-religious) Jewish but converted formally to Christianity in his early childhood. His maternal grandfather was a Dutch rabbi, while his paternal line had supplied Trier's rabbis since 1723, a role taken by his grandfather Meier Halevi Marx
every time

>>18575771
my diary desu

>>18575797
This. Leftists are invariably useful idiots for rich capitalists.

>>18575833
apparently John Calvin aka Jean Cauvin aka Jean COHEN, was also a jew. i have only read this in very esoteric out of print writings hundreds of years old by catholic priests who give no source. but his father, gerard "cauvin" was some kind of money changer who died with unpaid debts and was also excommunicated from the catholic church. he also groomed his sons to become priests, so he was most likely a subversive jew who was trying to spread heresy by his sons.

>>18575868
Have a shower. Change your clothes. Eat a salad. Get a job.

>>18575878
Go to reddit.

>>18575878
Same goes for>>18575856
>>18575833
>>18575797
>>18575796

Probably Lenin’s writings.
Das Kapital in a vacuum, while filled with autistic ideas that have been refuted time and time again, is rather harmless. Marx wasn’t writing towards a goal, he was only explaining what he thought would happen. Das Kapital isn’t a persuasive tract

>>18575893
seething

>>18575878
>Have a shower. Change your clothes. Eat a salad. Get a job.

>>18575895
>Das Kapital isn’t a persuasive tract
it's more technical so I guess the Communist Manifesto would be the correct answer

This. Gibbon is peak "enlightment' pretentiousness. He ruined Roman historiography

>>18575893
Ok schizo

>>18575895
>Marx wasn’t writing towards a goal, he was only explaining what he thought would happen. Das Kapital isn’t a persuasive tract
Don't be naive. Marxists always trot this sophistic rhetoric out; especially if they're trying defend the objective scientificity of it like Althusser and other retards do, and then they turn around and try to say similarly autistic and disinterested books like by Smith, Hayek, or any non-Marxist economist are pure ideology and only serve to persuade people of the ruling ideology. If there's any truth to Marxism, it ensures that nothing Marx wrote, including Capital, is innocent inquiry.

>>18575959
I would not call it an inquiry so much as a kind of cosmology.
He was asserting these things to be true from his observations of reality. He was wrong about most of it, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that Das Kapital is the reason for the communist atrocities of of the 20th century any more than I think it’s fair to say that the Bible is the cause of atrocities committed by Christian forces in the middle ages. I think it’s complicated

>>18575959
>nothing Marx wrote, including Capital, is innocent inquiry
I disagree. He blended pushing for a revolution and innocent inquiry. The man's main mission was presenting New Hegelian ideas. Maybe within that and the research of industrialization's effect on the proletariat he became more supportive of what his innocent inquiry convinced him was the future.

>>18575959
>Don't be naive. Marxists always trot this sophistic rhetoric out
This kek. They say the same about Foucault and every non-marxist. I learned in the past years to completely ignore marxists so they always kvetch that you should listen to both sides. You really shouldn't. Listen to Plato, Kant, and Shakespeare.

>>18576001
>non-marxist
neo-marxist*

>>18575995
>I think it’s fair to say that the Bible is the cause of atrocities committed by Christian forces in the middle ages. I think it’s complicated
the amount of people killed by religion pales in comparison to communism and other contemporary ideologies

>>18576008
More like NNNEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWW marxist :-)

>>18575878
No.

>>18575789
Seriously, how did he even think that he'd stand a chance in this debate?

>>18576018
You’re missing the point.
The death toll is higher because of how disastrously stupid the ideas are when put into practice, as far as the number of murders goes it fits in with other major world religions because it kind of is a religion

>>18575789
Incredibly based.

It was Locke who set us down the whole progressivist path.

>>18576035
Also to clarify when I say “murder” I mean direct, intentional homicide like the way they would line people up and shoot them in the head versus the less clear cut murder of what was at best gross mismanagement of food resources

>>18576045
Retard

>tfw leftists are literally too retarded to see the glaring flaws of their theory and realize its all just a regime change mechanism

>>18575995
>>18575999
It is the codification and foundation of the ideology of Marxism in whose name communists fucked up an entire century. He wrote it decades after his Young Hegelian philosopher phase and it is plainly based on and purely serves the interests of his revolutionary ideals as critique. There are large swathes of all three volumes that drop the pretense of economics and just espouse his ideology; its not like he was led to the ideology by the inquiry because the ideology preexisted and justified the "inquiry." And furthermore, he never in any of his books, polemic or "philosophy," actually explained what communism would be: does that mean his entire body of work is free of responsibility for everything done to achieve communism? The veneer of objective economic science in Capital was even the precise influence on the worst Stalinists, Maoists, and their apologists; they dismissed the early humanist philosophy of Marx and insisted on Capital as the bedrock of all of their ideology and disastrous policies from the purge to the Great Leap Forward. For that reason alone, Capital has done far worse damage than the Manifesto.

>very few posts of other books
>mostly discussion on marx and das kapital
so is OP right?

>>18576080
>>18576045

>>18576080
>so is OP right?
It's probably the communist manifesto. Communism is evil incarnate so it has to be a communist text. There is absolutely no good things in that ideology and only people who are already soulless or evil fall for it.

>>18575771
a brief summary

>>18576105
It’s rather interesting how it has evolved since the October revolution. Masculinity was important to the Bolshevik aesthetic. Nu-Commies are the exact opposite. They are hyper-feminine

>>18576105
>the communist manifesto
this is just the prelude to Das Kapital

>>18576107
>*a schizo summary
ftfy

>>18576107
and the root cause of the decline:

>>18576197
>that smug face

>>18575771
"The Thirst for Annihilation"

>>18576299
these guys were harmless

>>18576307
They were, but they didn't think they were.
And hilariously, they were more back by rich billionaire Jews than Marx ever was.

>>18575771
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

>>18576299
accfag spamming the weekends now

>>18575895
>Das Kapital in a vacuum,
This is a troll right? You have to be fucking around. Right? If you are it's really funny.

>>18576299
i doubt they've read anything

>>18575771
Good diagnosis, bad prescription.

>>18576494
>Good diagnosis, bad prescription.
/lit/ truly doesn't read.

>>18575797
>>18575831
>>18575856
>>18575905
It’s okay that you never learned how to read, but if you want to be a grumpy goose, maybe you should just jam a roll of quarters up your arse

>>18575771
Nobody in this thread (including myself) has read this book.

>>18575789
Peterson BTFO

>>18575796
>>Stirner's ideas would lead to disasterous consequences for humanity
Shut up bitch, I can do what I want.

>>18575792
>Nietzsche's works
how

>>18577398
nietzsche's works tend to produce manchildren

Done

>>18576479
He didn’t say most based and redpilled books

>>18575792
Stirner is literally just telling you to be Epicurean and lazy - his ideas aren't disastrous, he's just misinterpreted

>>18576197
Catholicism is BTFO by Galatians. No wonder why they were against mass printing the Bible.

>Catholicism is BTFO by Galatians.

>>18577616
Heating up some leftover copium eh.

>>18575771

>>18575778
/thread

>>18576299

>>18575778
fpbp

>>18576119
Communists don't have values. What's important for them is whatever can destroy the good. Marx did say that the "material conditions" change all the time so communists must change their methods too. The only consistent thing is that they're evil.

>>18575789
>meanwhile zizek's opening statement was just the usual speech he made back then

>>18578638
You Americans are so childish. Still seething over an entity that collapsed 30 years ago.

>>18575895
>autistic ideas that have been refuted time and time again

Name them

>>18578638
Communists seek to abolish value.

>>18578638
>The only consistent thing is that they're evil.
Mh, thats pretty based

>>18578447
what the fuck is a reactionary? these people got farther towards revolution than any of you retards ever did

>>18578963
Yeah if you're an edgy child or evil yourself

>>18579033
Reactionaries are something else than the MAGA people. Leftists are very dumb.

>>18575771
Reminder that Das Kapital volume 1 is only the introduction. Reminder that Volume 3 is the one that explain what's really wrong with Capitalism in detail.

>>18577527
why

>>18576107
What's stupid is that you only name ideologies, and never point the evolution of productive forces, which are the cause of evolution in trade and consumption, which are the cause of evolution in civil society (family, classes, religious orders), which is the cause of evolution of the political state.
This whole tradtard pic could be superposed with the evolution of productive forces throught the centuries.
Now back at it again. Is it the ideology which model the productive forces, or the productive forces which model the ideology?
Anwser: the latter.

>>18577191
I have. I'm in the middle of volume 3. How does that makes you feel? I'm elite i guess.
Oh by the way, i've read your trad literature and authors. It's shit.

i want to believe in christ but the doubt that springs from my suspicion that it's nothing more than a coping mechanism prevents me from doing so. And yes, I'm aware that it would be ideal to take a leap of faith but the shadow of my doubts and suspicions invariably arrests this

>>18576076
>the ideology of Marxism in whose name communists fucked up an entire century
communists were completely defeated by 1930, and their uprising was only generated by the contradictions of capital that culminated in the Great War of imperialist capitalist competition
>There are large swathes of all three volumes that drop the pretense of economics
what pretense of economics you dumb mongoloid? the book is subtitled "A Critique of Political Economy". it's communist and anti-economics from chapter 1. except you're just another cretin who never even touched that book but is going to talk about it nevertheless, in the good /lit/ tradition of every thread being filled with illiterate mongoloids talking out of their ass
>he never in any of his books, polemic or "philosophy," actually explained what communism would be
he did, you just haven't read them
>everything done to achieve communism
Marx: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established". you're doing great. 2499 sentences left to go and you'll have read more Marx than Jordan Peterson.
>The veneer of objective economic science in Capital was even the precise influence on the worst Stalinists, Maoists, and their apologists
the only salvageable thing you wrote. yes, the "veneer" is all they took from Marx. and they used it to facilitate the development of industrial capital at the expense of proletarians.

>>18578638
>evil
do you believe in santa claus too?

>>18579033
reactionaries were the representatives of the feudal landowning classes fighting against industrial capitalists and the bourgeois revolution, which was made in the interests of the latter against the former. this was a real struggle between a historically progressive and a historically conservative force.

now the word is used by the left wing of the bourgeoisie to denote the right wing of the bourgeoisie -- both just factions of what has long ago became a historically conservative force -- to make it seem like the left wing represents a historically progressive force. this is a part of a great effort to prevent any independent revolutionary movement by making it subservient to fractional bourgeois struggles where one side pretends to be progressive while serving the conservation of capitalist society

>>18575771
No one reads Das Kapital. Marx's influence was primarily social. He was promoted by capital and media over his nationalist contemporaries.

>>18579207
oh wait wrong thread

>>18579086
Well, I'm pretty based myself

>>18579212
>Marx's influence was primarily social. He was promoted by capital and media over his nationalist contemporaries.
They literally banned the Neue Rheinische Zeitung.
If it is to say very stupid things like this, you might as well kill yourself. You useless traditionalist.

Homer's Iliad.

>>18576107
>dude we need to retvrn to being peasant dirt farmers that were all blood tithed by their stupid masters

here's your good god fear tradition, bro

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

>>18579318
You seem upset.

>>18578950
The Labor Theory of Value is distilled autism

>>18579318
>They
Prussia. The last genuinely traditional state on Earth (along with Austria). And rightfully so. Prussia, Germany and Austria were quickly demolished by the (((powers that be))).

>>18579336
That right is mythical and never actually existed. It's basically fear propaganda invented by progressives to make monarchy out as a bogeyman.

>>18579499
Explain in detail why it is. I'll be waiting.

>>18579529
It's already been debunked by Deleuze

>>18579529

Most damaging books ever written. from a western perspective, don't know enough to judge oriental madness in detail.
1. The Quran (Muhammad)
2. The Social Contract (Rousseau)
3. The Institutions (Calvin)
4. The Capital (Marx)
5. Utilitarianism (Mill)

>>18579514
>Prussia. The last genuinely traditional state on Earth (along with Austria).
You people are retarded. (Pic related).

>>18579527
All political economy is mythical. They are all bitches for Capital accumulation and profit. All of them.
The only one who are not in this paradigm are those who want commodity abolition.

>>18579842
>they can differ in the degree of their 'scarcity'
scarcity depends on value
>in whether they are produced by people or gifted by nature
they're always produced by people AND gifted by nature
>and in the extent to which their temporal production and consumption profile something something interest rates
interest rates only appear with capital, i.e. self-valorizing value, so this presupposes what has yet to be explained
>unlike the neoclassicists who translate all such factors into the language of utility
they translate shit. utility is an abstraction devoid of any content
>Marxists exclude them from their explanation on the ground that they are 'subjective'
no they don't. I don't know where this retarded strawman comes from, but definitely not from reading Marx
>but since they also acknowledge that these factors do affect market prices, their theory becomes incomplete
no, it doesn't. if they only MEDIATE the appearance of value (prices), then obviously value still explains them. if they affect contingent fluctuations of prices from values, then the law of value simply isn't mean to explain those and it never claimed to. the law of value doesn't aspire to yield an equation for the price of a bottle of coke at my local store today.
>note that the labor theory of value requires perfect competition
now they're just inventing things
>firms and workers have to be "price takers", unable to individually affect prices and wages -- for otherwise, market prices could be set 'arbitrarily'
what a blatant false dilemma setup. capitalists set prices themselves, but those who survive long-term are limited by profitability calculations. they're neither "takers" or "setters". those idiotic abstractions belong in the trash
>those conditions of perfect competition do not ... exist in the capitalist reality
the fact that capital is continually asserting AND NEGATING the law of value on the basis of which it has to operate is not a fact that proves Marx wrong, but one that proves him right in that capital constantly moves in a self-undermining contradiction. Marx was fully aware of this. he for example wrote about monopolies in Vol. 3. or he wrote in Vol. 1 how state intervention was crucial in early development of capital and how it accelerates its centralization. and so on. but people who write those pseudo "critiques" depend on an audience that's unfamiliar with Marx's work, and rightly so.
>the existence of these power institutions and processes makes labour values (and therefore prices of production) practically useless for the study of actual prices and accumulation
it's the opposite. the study of actual prices and accumulation, and by consequence of the laws ruling capital, are crucial to the practical understanding of these "power institutions and processes", because all of them ultimately follow a single goal: facilitate smooth accumulation of capital. so you can never understand them without understanding the laws of this accumulation.

>>18580089
>the fact that capital is continually asserting AND NEGATING the law of value
Do you even think those retrads will ever get this? For them, Schicklgruber would magically overcome this law. Like a true magician.

>>18575856
>>18575797
>Engels was a joo
Do you people really?

>>18580089
>scarcity depends on value
Which you -spoiler alert- can't measure. And labour doesn't help here at all. There is nothing in the theory itself to tell us whether labour values explain 1 per cent of prices, 99 per cent, or anything in between, and whether this explanatory power remains stable or changes over time

>they're always produced by people AND gifted by nature
If sell some roses I found and picked from some meadow, I have produced them? And they are absolutely not different from some greenhouse genetically-engineered ones?

>interest rates only appear with capital, i.e. self-valorizing value, so this presupposes what has yet to be explained
And people set prices according to their belief in the existence of this self-valorizing value. The ritual of sacrificing you to the god of rain, doesn't mean that god of rain exists. But people believing in a god of rain do, so its effects are real.
Which once again raises the question "How ignoring anything aside from labour, can help explain prices?"

>they translate shit. utility is an abstraction devoid of any content
>no they don't. I don't know where this retarded strawman comes from, but definitely not from reading Marx
/0
Either you count "subjective" values as actually affecting the prices - and then Bohm-Bawerk's point stands.
Or you claim only labour as the only "material" explanation for prices - and then the question arises again "Why the hell it should explain shit, if the theory is incomplete?"
>if they only MEDIATE the appearance of value (prices), then obviously value still explains them
Which doesn't explain, why the hell ONLY labor produces value and NOT-mediates it. Because Marx said so?

>capitalists set prices themselves, but those who survive long-term are limited
Marx claims there is a tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Which presupposes that market is a perfect competition mechanism, and people are as free to set their prices as in neoclassic theory. (Except due to the Transformation Problem, it's actually not - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_problem )

>capital is continually asserting AND NEGATING the law of value
>capital constantly moves in a self-undermining contradiction
Hegelian gibberish

>so you can never understand them without understanding the laws of this accumulation.
Which once again raises the question "How ignoring anything aside from labour, can help explain prices?"

>>18575856
Capital abolitionist are, in the opinion of traditionalists, useful idiots for rich Capitalist.
However, traditionalists, who want to keep commodity and money, are Capitalism enemies.
I'm really starting to despise you.

>>18580144
>Do you even think those retrads will ever get this?
Get this retard:
1. Marx claims there's productive value and unproductive. The distinction is important, because productive value produces surplus value, while unproductive doesn't.
2. How do we determine whether surplus value is generated? By observing whether labor was productive.
3. How do we decide when labor was productive? Well, duh, when it's generating surplus value!

Marx's Labour theory is circulatory and presupposes what has yet to be explained.

>>18580300
>1. Marx claims there's productive labor and unproductive
typo fix

>>18580240
>Marx claims there is a tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Which presupposes that market is a perfect competition mechanism, and people are as free to set their prices as in neoclassic theory. (Except due to the Transformation Problem, it's actually not - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_problem )
There is no transformation problem. With different level of productivity, the same amount of labor produce the different values. However, Capitalism is a gigantic centrifuge which expel inferior compositions Capitals (low productivity factories), and keep superiorior composition capitals( high productivity factories). This tend to continally crush, and bankrupt, the less productive factories.
In the end, sure, there is no retarded law of value, meaning, 1 hour of human work is not the same in a particular low tech factory, and in a high tech factory. However, the tendency is empirically and undeniably toward the high tech factory. So surplus values are different, profits are differents, but there is something Marx called the average rate of profit, which is the average profit create on a particular economical branch, if you addition all the factories of this particular branch.
In any case, the fact that Capital from different organic composition produce different value, do not mean labor is not the source of these values. It only means that a low tech factory produce less value with the same amount of work, but with competition, the general organic composition tend always toward the most mechanized factory.
Whatever: "HEIL HITLER". See, i'm smart after all.

>>18575778
>>18575784
>>18575787
>>18578406
>>18578450
dilate

>>18580300
You didn't understand the productive and unproductive labor distinction.
Productive and unproductive labor is about finding if it can accumulate Capital or not.

>>18580375
>Productive and unproductive labor is about finding if it can accumulate Capital or not.
And you find it, by deciding whether labor was productive or not. Services bad, factories good.

>>18580300
Same retarded argument could be made about the subjective value theory:
What determines prices? Supply and demand.
How does supply and demand work? With balances between prices.

>>18580413
All value theories are retarded, including Marxism's

>>18580405
>Services bad, factories good.
Regarding value creation, and not regarding social utility, yes, services bad. Have you ever saw a rock concert accumulating Capital on the long run? Or a restaurant (except some rare exceptions, like Mcdonals), Movies theatres? They cannot create value. They only eat value already existing in society. That's why the government closed the service industry in 2020-2021. In order to redirect consumption from services to primary sector (hardware consumption, which accumulate Capital, creates value).

>>18580413
>Same retarded argument could be made about the subjective value theory:
Indeed. It could. Which doesn't automatically make Labor Theory of Value true.

There is no determinable supply and demand. There is no way to objectively assign value to commodity. There is no such thing as Capital.
But that's probably something too complicated for you retards to grasp,

>>18580427
Marx theory of value is by far the closest to reality. It is globally and empirically true. And it makes sense that unpaid labor, surplus value, is taken from the workers, and reinjected into the production in order to increase it's scale, in a process of Capital accumulation. That's Capitalism.
Only the workers don't enrich themselves from this. They only see the general prices of production, the general values, decrease, which allow them to consume more. But they loose power, again and again. In the end, they have tons of shit to buy, cheap, but are powerless. They have given their life, their time, their collective power, for cheap plastic items.

>>18580454
All concentrated powers must be abolished that's for sure. You could probably have a totally democratic Capital thought, and that's what we were probably going toward, if the tendency of the rate of profit to fall (combined with market saturatin) wasn't accelerating, and making Capital impossible to accumulate anymore. Prices of production are not determined by "power". But are regulated by the amount of labor, combined with a particular level of productivity. It is empirically verifiable.

>>18580432
>Movies theatres? They cannot create value. They only eat value already existing in society.
Insurance? It cannot create value. But without it, no one starts a business. Thus rendering productivity to zero.
Laws made by politicians? They cannot create value. But without them, no one would feel safe and go to work on a factory. Thus rendering productivity to zero.

Either we go too abstract and include everything as productive, or we make judgements according to our naked eye. And your perception is faulty (pic related)
Or, there is no such thing as value.

>>18580459
>Marx theory of value is by far the closest to reality
No it's not, they're all equally retarded and detached from reality.

>>18580482
>But are regulated by the amount of labor
Computation of which produces zero or negative amounts of value, if we try to measure joint-production. Meaning, the labor theory is shit.

>>18580487
Faux frais of production have been discussed by Marx. In an archaic way, but still.

>>18580497
Power theory of value is even more nebulous. Your author Nitzan has criticized the labor theory of value, but hasn't proposed a valid model either. "Power theory of value". We are even less backward than with the pure labor theory of value. It doesn't allow to calculate anything, doesn't have formulas, theorical explanations.

>>18580240
>Which you -spoiler alert- can't measure. And labour doesn't help here at all. There is nothing in the theory itself to tell us whether labour values explain 1 per cent of prices, 99 per cent, or anything in between
value appears as price. you can measure it as price. measuring it without the mediation of its empirical appearance is not only impossible but nonsensical to talk about. and Marx was very clear about that.
>If sell some roses I found and picked from some meadow, I have produced them?
yes, the product was a result of your activity upon something gifted nature
>And they are absolutely not different from some greenhouse genetically-engineered ones?
no, they're different, unless they're engineered to be the same
>And people set prices according to their belief in the existence of this self-valorizing value.
they don't, but I don't get your point either way
>Which once again raises the question "How ignoring anything aside from labour, can help explain prices?"
excluding factors that aren't relevant in an explanation is something you always have to do in order to provide an explanation. otherwise you're just listing everything that exists in the world, which is not very helpful
>Either you count "subjective" values as actually affecting the prices
I don't know what "subjective values" are, but if you're getting at the acts of buying and selling then obviously I "count" them. Marx: "By what is the price of a commodity determined? By the competition between buyers and sellers, by the relation of the demand to the supply, of the call to the offer."
>Which doesn't explain, why the hell ONLY labor produces value and NOT-mediates it.
because prices are a mechanism for apportioning the available dead and living labour of society between private producers according to what they have produced. they must correspond to what the products contain, otherwise half of the producers wouldn't be unable to reproduce their products and society would crumble
>Marx claims there is a tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Which presupposes that market is a perfect competition mechanism
it doesn't presuppose perfect competition. it presupposes competition.
>Hegelian gibberish
if the concept of something containing two opposite tendencies is too much for you to comprehend then I can't help

>>18580300
>How do we determine whether surplus value is generated
surplus value is generated when wage labour is hired to produce commodities that aren't exclusively circulation services.

>>18580432
Marx:
>A singer who sings like a bird is an unproductive worker. If she sells her song for money, she is to that extent a wage-labourer or merchant. But if the same singer is engaged by an entrepreneur who makes her sing to make money, then she becomes a productive worker, since she produces capital directly.

>>18575771
MALTHUS

>>18580820
>A singer who sings like a bird is an unproductive worker. If she sells her song for money, she is to that extent a wage-labourer or merchant. But if the same singer is engaged by an entrepreneur who makes her sing to make money, then she becomes a productive worker, since she produces capital directly.
I'm not on volume 4 yet. So the criterium between productive and unproductive labor seem to be capital accumulation. Which makes sense in the sense that only exploitation of a lot of workers, and reinvestment in production allow for Capital accumulation. One cannot real accumulate Capital, by working only himself for himself.

>>18580788
>Your author Nitzan has criticized the labor theory of value, but hasn't proposed a valid model either.

I highly dislike this mode of "criticism." It's akin to tu quoque and just takes away from the criticism by essentially not acknowledging it.

>>18580788
>Power theory of value is even more nebulous.
It fits empirical data and does deliver (pic related). Unlike Marx.

>>18580820
>value appears as price
Then we have price. Only price. What has "labor" to do with that?

>yes, the product was a result of your activity upon something gifted nature
This activity is unmeasurable. Therefore, Labor Theory sucks.
>no, they're different, unless they're engineered to be the same
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregation_problem
Therefore, Labor Theory sucks.

>excluding factors that aren't relevant in an explanation
Exclude labor. It doesn't explain shit.

>they don't
They do. If you believe that people will buy something for a high price, you raise that price.
Your belief might be unwarranted (you could have decided that through voodoo ritual), yet if you're powerful enough - others raise their prices as well. Therefore, price raising chain reaction. Therefore, lack of circulating moneys. Therefore, inflation.

>by the relation of the demand to the supply
Undefinable. Therefore, the theory is shit.

>because prices are a mechanism for apportioning the available dead and living labour
Replace "labour" with "the will of god". Same shit. Your "because" is conjured up out of Marx's ass. Your "because" is "Marx said so, therefore it is true"

>it doesn't presuppose perfect competition. it presupposes competition.
It presupposes as you yourself quoted "the relation of the demand to the supply". We have huge problems with that - we *cannot* determine what demand is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnenschein–Mantel–Debreu_theorem
And we cannot determine what supply is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_capital_controversy

Meaning, there is no supply and demand. Meaning, the premise could have been based on some fucking "deus vult" instead. Meaning, Marx's theory is shit.

>if the concept of something containing two opposite tendencies
Whose opposition is determined by your naked eye and "Because I said so" reasoning. As I said, gibberish. Religious mantra.

>Surplus value is generated when wage labour is hired to produce commodities that aren't exclusively circulation services
Except that >>18580487 without these services, you produce zero commodities.
Australian native savages abandonded agriculture, because unpredictable weather and no "insurance" in case of failure. Therefore, "unproductive services" are necessary. Therefore, unproductive services are productive.
Therefore, the theory is shit.

>But if the same singer is engaged by an entrepreneur who makes her sing to make money, then she becomes a productive worker
Meaning, the same shit either produces magical ectoplasm, or doesn't. Determine it whichever way you want.

>>18579033
getting this assblasted over a stupid meme
>>18579089
assuming I'm a leftist

>>18580788
>It doesn't allow to calculate anything, doesn't have formulas, theorical explanations

>>18581470
https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/10/05/how-the-history-of-class-struggle-is-written-on-the-stock-market/

>>18581470
>Then we have price. Only price. What has "labor" to do with that?
I explained that later in my post
>This activity is unmeasurable
unmeasurable how? and what of it? also, you're shifting the goalpost. this was about labour and nature
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregation_problem
all you're capable of doing is pasting random pages and wikipedia articles you googled and repeating "you're wrong". literal npc. if you want responses then put in some effort.
>If you believe that people will buy something for a high price, you raise that price.
that's not based on a belief in self-valorizing value but in a belief about demand for your product at a given price, i.e. that people will buy it
>Undefinable
behold, we're entering "just call everything a spook" territory.
>Replace "labour" with "the will of god". Same shit.
no, if I do that then the sentence no longer corresponds to reality. capitalists buy precisely labour-power and products of labour with the money they get by selling their products. they don't buy "the will of god"
>It presupposes as you yourself quoted "the relation of the demand to the supply"
moving goalposts to throw yet another set of wikipedia links at me. it's sad to witness such desperation.
>We have huge problems with that - we *cannot* determine what demand is
so what? nobody asked
>Meaning, there is no supply and demand.
the fact that you can't directly determine the quantity of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. especially when you have proof that it exists in the form of people offering to buy things and people offering to sell things.
>Whose opposition is determined by your naked eye and "Because I said so" reasoning.
if you want to understand the reasoning then how about you read Marx, you dunce. it's as if I never read a book on the French Revolution and then said that the fact that I don't even know the date it started is proof that it never happened
>Therefore, "unproductive services" are necessary.
no shit. do you think Marx believed capitalists just throw money at them for shits and giggles? Vol. 2: "Circulation is just as necessary for commodity production as is production itself, and thus agents of circulation are just as necessary as agents of production"

>Therefore, unproductive services are productive.
they're not directly productive of surplus value, which is what Marx denotes as unproductive. if you want to denote something else as unproductive then be my guest, but do it away from me because I don't care
>Meaning, the same shit either produces magical ectoplasm, or doesn't.
no, it means that you don't produce profit when you sing in the shower but you do if you get hired to sing at a show that sells tickets

>>18577527
The dude literally flat out says that the weak, retarded and disabled should be euthanized. There is no philosopher as based as that spicy schnitzel. If Nietzsche's philosophy were embraced by modern Europeans, it would be the best thing to happen to the West in centuries and manchildren would be the first to be put to the sword.

lol the one ancap making these threads is such a retard

>>18577139
>cannot refute that marx got paid by jews so he resorts to name calling
Everytime

>>18581993
>gets refuted
stop shifting the goalpost
>gets refuted again
stop posting links
>a hole in his theory is pointed out
who cares?
>gets refuted again
no one asked
>he points out the terms he uses are not defined well in his theory
strawman!!!

Bravo communist

>>18576028
>Seriously, how did he even think that he'd stand a chance in this debate?
Did he get called out on it ?

>>18578956
>Communists seek to abolish value.
That helps explain the numbers of people killed.

>>18585146
Capitalism killed a lot more.

>>18584938
you have refuted only your own strawmen (and by your own I mean ones you found in random links you found after googling "Marx debunked") and your "pointing out holes in the theory" consisted in shooting random factoids and never explaining how they're supposed to undermine Marx's work (which you can't, because as you yourself admitted ["I don't know the reasoning"] and shown repeatedly [supposed gotchas that turn out to be restatements of what Marx himself already wrote verbatim in Capital], you're unfamiliar with the content of that work)

>>18581470
>>Power theory of value is even more nebulous.
>It fits empirical data and does deliver (pic related). Unlike Marx.
Of course, since power it derived from absorbing surplus labor.
In the end, yes, it's power, but it's power derived from capturing crystalized labor, and derived from the social body acknowledging this social relation is okay.
Power doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exist because of particular social relations. Notably commodity, money, exploitation of proletarians.

>>18581489
Basically your guy is essentially saying the same thing as Marx, but in a less realistic and interesting way.
Power doesn't exist in a vacuum. It doesn't magically appear. It is based on money, which is crystalized labor. And it all relies on the social body, which validate such relationships. Moslty on the hope that some day, they'll be "part of it".

>>18585162
Reminder that Capitalism is solely responsible for WWI, and WWII. Nobody that is not in cognitive dissonance, can deny this fact.

>>18586064
Brainlet take

>>18586073
Yes it's the german or the anglo or the jews fault. Retard.

Marxism was bad. But this nigga and this essay is responsible for making the Marxist project resilient to critical historical investigation and every postmodern retardation currently out and about menacing the general populace.

>>18576107
>Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are actually christians
every time

>>18586061
>It is based on money, which is crystalized labor.
You are like a cultist. You keep chanting "Labor, labor, it must be labor", while you've been repeatedly bitch-slapped that labor is undefinable and unmeasurable.

>but in a less realistic and interesting way.
in a more realistic and data-fitting way

>>18579914
Bullshit though, none of the enlightenment thinkers caused the West to stagnate and they are all fairly esoteric writers that not that many people read.

>>18579914
How has the Quran destroyed the West? And of the reasons you may have, how do they not apply to the Bible and any other religious text?

>>18586320
>Labor, labor, it must be labor", while you've been repeatedly bitch-slapped that labor is undefinable and unmeasurable.
It is undefinable by your weak brain.