/lit/ - Literature

>>20151904
>No marx-tards
>Posts a Marxian image
<img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/90786369_pepePoint.png">

>>20151904
My diary <img class="xae" data-xae width="28" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/80692b94_desu.png">

>>20151910
Yeah I need the image debunked

There is nothing to disprove as this model, albeit slightly more complicated, still explains what's going on.
People like you puzzle me, why are you so motivated to work in the capitalists' favor? Even the nazis accepted these theories.

>>20151946
Yeah, how can people not know what's profit? Never sit down and think about the economy for 5 minutes in your life, OP?

>>20151946
The worker can value his or her time at any dollar-value. If the employer pays a wage higher than the workers values his own time, then the worker has extracted surplus from the employer. But the employer can also value the workers labor at more than the wage, meaning the employer has gotten surplus value too. Win-win situation everyone gets richer when they trade things that they place different values on. Same principle as one person likes peperoni pizza, another likes anchovy, they can trade and both be better off.

>>20151904
I’m not a libertarian but their criticism isn’t about their specific individual tax rate but more about how all of our taxes as a whole are being used ineffectually.

>>20151988
>capitalists introducing moral-religious justifications for their exploitation
Every fucking time.
The modern man is nothing but a cog, a drone in a machine without any identity, even liberals like Weber recognised this.

>>20152021
this. only retards work in politics. anyone who sincerely dickrides marxist shit clearly never went to an american public school or the dmv or had to interact with a social worker

>>20151946
>Even the nazis accepted these theories.
but i thought fascist are le thugs of capital

> Muh Exploitation
Ask them to explain why anybody should care about so called "exploitation". If they make some moralistic point then they aren't really Marxists, they're some other kind of Socialist, in which case you can simply point out that the employer is entitled to a larger share of the profits after taking the actual risk with his capital, whereas the workers are simply providing their labor for money in return. If they attack on you some theoretical ground just defend with theory again, Marxism is religious in it's obsession with so called "late capitalism" but there is no real theoretical reason why capitalism should give way to socialism. More likely that capitalism will go on forever 'till we leave this planet and/or destroy it.
Taxation is completely different, it is outright theft and not "exploitation", if taxes are low and efficient however, there is little to complain about and in this respect, the best tax is the Land Value Tax of Henry George.

>marxshits still clinging onto theories debunked in the 1800s

>>20151904
You can read the first volume of Capital to debunk it yourself, in your own mind. A book is not really necessary. It relies on an imaginary idea of labor which only has meaning when derived from other values. The value of labor being completely determined by another variable, although this is hidden by modifying (what some would call "reifying") the idea of labor so that it no longer bears resemblance to what most people consider labor to be, which is just hours of time spent doing something in the most general sense. The thing is even "debunking" it at this level will not change anyone's mind, because they either aren't well read enough to understand what's being discussed, or they are and they are fully committed to the reified conception of labor and consequently "labor value." At that point it is no longer possible to debunk it, any more than it's possible to debunk God. It has a degree of truth, in that labor is one factor of production and supply and so is relevant (yet still only downstream from other factors, because labor is only valued insofar as it is valuable) to economic analysis.

>>20151904
>that image
Ask for a raise, idiot, or find a new job that pays you what you're worth.

>>20151904
I genuinely don't understand why Marxists are so happy to ignore and dismiss taxes - especially income taxes on labor, but any tax that falls mainly on workers or vulnerable people. It seems like something they should naturally oppose, given that taxes can be structured in all sorts of other ways and income tax is an unambiguously bad thing for workers.

It's also quantifiable in a straightforward way and the average person will know when they are - and aren't - being taxed. Surplus value is definitely not quantifiable in the same way, and any outrage about it rests atop a mountain of Marxist analysis, assumptions, and agitation that a person must first climb.

I know which battle I would pick.

>>20152351
Income tax is the most powerful way of generating revenue for the state, which is totally necessary for supporting bloated social welfare systems. Leftists get most of their democratic support from those entrenched in social welfare systems, so they naturally have to favor income tax hikes which steadily creep into the lower brackets (due to the multiplier effect of revenue - even though the poor obviously earn a lot less, there are so many of them that they produce significantly more revenue as a whole than the higher brackets, and they are easier to infringe upon with taxes without systemic kickback, because the actual difference in tax for each person is so minimal that they tend to barely notice it).

>>20151904
it cannot be debunked <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="31" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/f93f9e5a_AYAYA.png">

>>20151929
Workers earn 80% of all incomes in the economy while entrepreneurs get the remaining 20%. Currently taxes are also way higher (both workers and entrepreneurs sustain their rulers and constantly increasing bureaucracy); the image is pure fantasy bullshit, like all gommie "ideology'.

>>20151904
Ok

>>20151904
Society is inherently built upon the cause, benefit and loss of man, experiencing out of a trillion years of evolution, a moment of realization, witnessing the result o his preconscious exploitation of nature. That moment is 'the fall' - man turning on his fellow animal in a bid to save them (sound familiar?) - for man so loved nature that he initialized the 'samson option' on his own future. He couldn't stand to see his filial mouth eat the whole world, so he decided he would end it. The instant man first knew himself, he began his suicide. That samson option is (even prehistorical) human history.

Now, the real question is: is this a marxist idea or not?

>>20151904
"Surplus value"

The Marxists never actually explain how that value can be created without the capital of the business owner though.

>>20151904
Theory of Political Economy by Jevons
Or basically anything from after 1870, Marx was thoroughly debunked by the marginalist revolution
>muh surplus value
Not even Marx could make a functioning economic model using this theory. It's just a fairy tale told in economic jargon.

>>20151904
>OP got BTFO by an infographic and now needs someone to spoonfeed him a refutation that confirms his biases
lmao

>>20151904
The Reckoning: Financial Accountability and the Rise and Fall of Nations
by Jacob Soll

Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics: Entrepreneurship and the State
by Yasheng Huang

The Third Pillar: How Markets and the State Leave the Community Behind
by Raghuram G. Rajan

Russia's Crony Capitalism: The Path from Market Economy to Kleptocracy
by Anders Åslund

The Great Reversal: How America Gave Up on Free Markets
by Thomas Philippon
<img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/51ca59c2_BOOMER.png">

>>20151904
there is no debunking about to happen. there are certain premises that you can accept or not accept that are based on your own disposition and philosophical positions you have toward the world. it is you who decides whether a specific theory of labour is valid or not.

if you believe that you should be able to negotiate with others for what you are willing to do for them and to come to a mutually decided agreement or trade for your labour, you may be a capitalist; or, you might assert that some activities must have a limiting factor put on them and a certain minimum threshold must be met before one's labour can be considered legitimately negotiated or acquired from, in which case, you might be a marxist (or any theory which make such assertions).

you don't need a book to come to decide on such things, you can just learn philosophy to organize your thinking and think.

>>20152351
taxes are ultimately paid by the bourgeoisie, and they're paid by them even in the short term provided that proletarians successfully defend their wages.
so there's no reason for them to be going after taxes specifically, and there's a big reason against it in the fact that opposition to taxes is a petty-bourgeois demand. concentrating on such demands tends to strengthen the elements that wish to weaken the proletarian movement's independence and subjugate it to the middle classes who would always like to use the proletariat as a means of struggle against the big bourgeoisie. yet, the basic condition of success of the proletarian movement is that it guards itself tightly from such enemy influences. and the fundamental way this is achieved is by discarding any demands that aren't strictly proletarian class demands.
>>20152379
the welfare state is a means by which the bourgeois state sustains its rule. Marxists don't support it at all. its role is to preserve the conditions necessary for capitalist production to continue harmoniously: 1. to keep the workers in working condition between periods of employment, 2. to prevent broad social unrest and resulting infavourable business conditions.
>>20152763
why would they have to explain that? are you retarded? production of surplus value is simply the self-valorization of capital. so obviously it needs capital. that's the entire point.
>>20152780
he literally made a model of a functioning economy with it though: he used it to explain capitalism.

>>20151904
>pic related
I love observing stupid people and their endearing little games.

How the fuck do you figure out each persons surplus value.

>>20152836
> projecting headcanon onto a bait thread made for the sole purpose of collecting replies for emotes
Seek help <span class="xae" data-xae="cry">&#x1F622;[/spoiler]

>>20151904
It's one of the most easily disprovable things in all of philosophy. You can disprove it through pure introspection. There's no complicated books needed.

>>20151946
The Nazis were indeed exceedingly dumb people, like their close cousins the Marxists.

>>20151904
The simplest is to notice that if you follow Marx in his thinking he doesn't think you can alienate animal or machine labour, which leads to silly ideas.

>>20151904
Try setting up a hamburger restaurant in the Punjab. Work really hard at it and see how many customers you get and therefore how much money you make. If LTV is correct, the answer will be lots.

>>20151904
>can someone think for me???
If it's so retarded an intellectual titan like yourself should be able to decimate it with hardly any effort.

>>20151904
>>20151929
Ultimately, neither taxation nor "surplus value" are theft. What profit you take away from a private enterprise is determined by a contract you sign upon employment. Similarly, taxation is the result of an "understanding" between a body politic and its appointed "managers of the body politic's wealth", be they princes, commissars, or elected ministers; no man is an island independent of the society he was born into, and he has no "right" to personal exemption from a tax unless he severs himself from the blood and soil of the body politic (in the former case metaphorically, in the latter case literally).
Marxists need to catch up with the Chinese mindset. A man who can muster large sums of money (in a morally scrupulous manner) has obtained inherent social power; if he acts irresponsibly he is not fulfilling his SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, which is INEXTRICABLE from that power, and so he deserves to be removed from the society and deprived of his power (in this case manifested as money). A "capitalist culture" ought to be censored (not necessarily overthrown) because the upstart bourgeois are tyrannous, not because of some obscure and contrived economic theory.

>>20153996
tldr lolbert

>>20153996
Anon, why are you bitching about books that you never read?

>>20151929
It doesn’t get debunked, tard. If your job is a drag on the company and that red field shrinks any, you get. Fired. You’d complain if the yellow field grew but it cannot eclipse the orange field without it obviously meaning you owe more taxes than you made that year. What you want to call either field is up to you. Duh. <img class="xae" data-xae width="28" height="28" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/fad6951c_Pog.png">

>>20152264
You shouldn’t expect consistency in argument from marxists, they are by their very nature sophists.

>>20153998
I will learn brevity from your example
>>20154014
I didn't mention any books here

>>20152024
wait, Weber was a liberal?>>20152264
don't expect modern Marxists to be consistent

>>20151904
>Profit is theft
The value of your labor is not determined by solely by working hours. Its determined by the expertise (can someone easily do what you're doing?), quality (is the type of work you're doing up to the standards of the market?), time (jobs often require you to complete a task within a time frame), and scarcity (is the labor you're doing short in supply?) and cost (the Enterprise has to put money for your uniforms, your training, your wage, the taxes on the property the costs of means of production and input materials), and the risk (both the worker and enterprise have risks depending on the type of job). There is no theft here. Theft is the willful intent of stealing from someone. Bosses are not willfully stealing from you by paying you according to what the conditions of the market allow. Competition, which drives the logic of wages, is not theft - its just reality induced by time and scarcity.
The primary problem with the Marxist argument for exploitation is the failure to understand "exploitation" is a necessary part of life. Humans must exploit their environment, to survive, because they have limited time and limited resources to complete tasks. "Exploitation" is simply the utilization our resources, such as time, in the most efficient matter possible. The Marxist critique of wage labor being exploitation is simply slave morality - ridiculous, childish moral non-sense that flies in the fact of reality. Get better arguments.

>>20152024
>capitalists introducing moral-religious justifications for their exploitation
save me your mellowdrama. tell me one enacted system that hasnt introduced moral-religious justification outside of purely speculative theorycrafting book.
(Spoiler alert, there isnt)

>>20154120
>The primary problem with the Marxist argument for exploitation is the failure to understand "exploitation" is a necessary part of life.
Anon, why are you bitching about books that you never read?

>"Exploitation" is simply the utilization our resources, such as time, in the most efficient matter possible
What happens when it's no longer the most efficient maNNer possible?

>>20152351
fyi there were no taxes in the USSR

>>20153608
You don't - which is why socialism is largely impossible. There's no way for labor time to actually reflect the true cost of production. The idea janitors and nurses should be paid the same because they may work the same hours is ludicrous. Without surplus labor, which creates surplus value, how would civilization progress? There would be no incentive for people to move beyond subsistence because, to the Marxist, that is "unjust." How fucking ridiculous.
>Anon, why are you bitching about books that you never read?
Anon, this isn't a counter-argument. You're just doing philistinism. Nobody cares about what your stupid ass books. We're talking about reality. Real life - outside of books. Can you make an argument based on reality, or are you just going to tell people pretend some book written by some NEET faggot who's been dead for about 200 years is still relevant to real life? Is that so hard for you?

>>20154039
"marxist" would implicitly refer to the body of marxist theory which is, in fact, a bunch of books

>>20154130
>What happens when it's no longer the most efficient maNNer possible?
Another method is found - retard. That's why slavery was largely done away with when technology was much more efficient than putting down slave revolts all time. You claim to be a materialist, and yet you retards never seem to base your analysis of the world based on what's materially possible. You're so fucking stupid. No wonder nobody gives a fuck what you losers think. You're just a dumb ass undergraduate college student with no real world knowledge.

>>20154165
if the janitor is the only guy who wants to clean shit out toilets shouldn't he theoretically be paid the most?

>>20151904
>“Theft”
Why is there quotations there? from its base definition of taxation it can be theft if one does not want to pay it nor reap the rewards from it.

I mean, You can argue that taxation is a good thing as well for the whole body politic and as a regulatory tool, but it is still essentially forced rent. weither on not it is a good thing is somewhat seperate from it being theft.

>>20154184
<img class="xae" data-xae width="28" height="28" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/25908e08_PepeLmao.png"> oh he mad

>>20154187
you can say the same thing about work, anon. work or starve, pay tax or go to jail. if you hate the one you hate the other

>>20154165
>Nobody cares about what your stupid ass books.
The fuck are you doing on /lit/ then?

>We're talking about reality.
Ideologies that you came up with in your head have literally less to do with reality than books.

>Can you make an argument based on reality
Can you?

> or are you just going to tell people pretend some book written by some NEET faggot who's been dead for about 200 years is still relevant to real life?
I'm not the one who continuously suffers the need to deboonk the irrelevant dead NEET faggot. If you don't care then finally stop wasting your time explaining how wrong he was and lowering the quality of this board.

>>20154206
>If you read a book - reality changes
This is your brain Marxism. The holodomor, the Great Leap Forward, Pol Pot's can just be ignored because that wasn't real Marxism. But you, the unemployable degenerate humanities major, if you were in charge, would do things differently because your sacred knowledge of Marxism would make the difference. You're a complete moron. You could just fill out a resume, save your money and learn how to finance. No, instead you just want sit your worthless on the internet all day debating Marxism because you're a parasite that contributes nothing to society.

>>20154209
>16:16
>16:38
Did you really just sit F5ing waiting for my post with a pre-written response <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/8b7cc3e0_WTFF.png">?

>>20154221

>>20154224
>he actually did
<img class="xae" data-xae width="28" height="28" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/48c107b3_monkaChrist.png">..

>>20154228
You will never have universal healthcare.
You will never have UBI.
You will have free college.
You will never own the means of reproduction.
You will never be a woman.
You will never live to see socialism.

>>20154221
>When Marxists are such NPCs you can already predict their arguments before they type it
Get a job, bum. Bernie lost. Coalburn lost. The USSR is gone and never coming back. Cuba is a shit hole. China is a shit hole. Nobody will ever take your ideas seriously. Kill yourself.

>labor = value

>>20151946
>Why are you motivated not to mooch off your parents?
Cause someone of actually want to start a family, and not leech like you do?

>>20154236
>You will have free college.
Wait what?

>>20151904
How can total value be greater than profits, wages and taxes? that diagram doesnt make sense by its own logic

>>20154280
>How can total value be greater than profits, wages and taxes
Um, production costs, maybe?

Those are reducible to wages, taxes and surp value overall. I dunno, I didn't make the picture.

>>20154201
ah, not really. your analogy doesnt quite read. If you do not want to work nor reap its benifits, you do not have to work. On your jail point the predicate does not necessitate the subject. not paying something to a body politic does not mean the body politic necessarily will incarcerate you.

I am not argueing for no taxation, but I think “theft” is not a situationally incorrect term for taxation in terms of predicates and object. As a necissary or benifical process I can understand it, but by its very nature, its a tithe collected outside of ones necessary consent.

>>20151904
The labor theory of value isn't true. Value doesn't come from labor. value is subjective. Consider than you can make things worse by working on them poorly rather than simply leaving them alone.

Marxism still suffers from the price-transformation problem. If value actually was determined only by socially necessary labor time, then why in the fuck do prices behave the way they do? It makes no sense. Okishios theorem also points out that the LTV is internally contradictory with Marx's tendency of the profit rate to fall in the long run.

The best model for the movement of prices is supply and demand. subjective value is the underlying assumption for supply and demand. not LTV.

>>20151904
Marginal utility revolution, read Menger's Principles of Economics.

>inb4 supply and demand graphs
BTFO by Sonnenschein–Mantel–Debreu Thm

>>20154178
"Marxist" is an adjective or noun, which can be applied not only to books but people.

>>20154201
Why should people who don't work not starve? You want society to feed people who don't contribute?

>>20152264
They believe themselves to be a third position that isn’t left or right but they are really hyper capitalist.

>>20151904
The first section of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy by Schumpeter is pretty thorough a critique of Marx. He presents an economic argument to refute the surplus value theory.

The surplus value of labor hinges on employers paying laborers less than what they're worth.
What is profit? In an economic sense, it is simply revenue minus costs. Marx's error is that he only considers labor (employees) as a cost, and excludes capital (basically everything else). If you consider only labor as a cost, then it's easy to see where Marx is coming from- it would be necessary to pay the employee less than they help you earn through revenue in order to make a profit. However if capital exists too, then the equation looks much different. It's entirely possible to pay their employees more than they're worth (raise the cost of labor) while compensating for that through lowered cost of capital, and still profit.

And in fact, I would wager that this is the case for many modern businesses. Companies can get money back through capital in the form of stocks and bonds, appreciating real estate they might own, amortized but functional equipment, countless things. All of which are things that let the employer pay the employee more than they help bring in. For some companies, it's not even entirely necessary that they make a profit on paper for them to keep operating, Tesla being the leading example. By Marx's definition, that employee would be worth literally nothing but I can't imagine anyone thinks that Tesla's employees aren't well compensated.

>>20154507
>And in fact, I would wager that this is the case for many modern businesses. Companies can get money back through capital in the form of stocks and bonds, appreciating real estate they might own, amortized but functional equipment, countless things. All of which are things that let the employer pay the employee more than they help bring in. For some companies, it's not even entirely necessary that they make a profit on paper for them to keep operating, Tesla being the leading example. By Marx's definition, that employee would be worth literally nothing but I can't imagine anyone thinks that Tesla's employees aren't well compensated.

>>20151904
Rerum Novarum

>>20151904
Rothbardt
Mises

Labor does not create value.

>>20151946
But anon we don't have capitalism. We have a planned crony economy.

>>20151929
Labor doesn't create value. If you move a rock around all day you are laboring hard. It does nothing. What creates value is innovation and tooling, raw materials, logistics, and actually filling needs and wants. Labor theory of value is absolutely fucking retarded. Lets say you make two pizzas and a dude pays you 10 bucks for the first one. He is full. He will not pay 10 dollars for the second pizza because it is no longer worth 10 dollars to him. It doesn't fucking matter how hard you work what matters is the value a person agrees and is willing to pay for a good or service. You can knit a sweater for 200 hours and it still isn't worth fucking 4,000 dollars for $20/hr in labor. The labor theory of value is on its face the most retarded economic theory of all time. The only reason communism makes sense to people is because we evolved to live in hunter gatherer tribes and sharing meat with the whole tribe makes sense to humans atavistically.

>>20151904
>No marx-tards
>posts unfalsifiable marxtard logic

>>20154514
uhhh, that's not an argument saweeety, try again <span class="xae" data-xae="yikes">&#x1F612;[/spoiler]

>>20152070
The best way to see this is to work for the government.
>be me
>take a government job for a pay cut
>find out all of my coworkers do less than 1 hour of actual work a day
>covid hits
>productivity drops even further
>spend most of my working hours watching porn, playing vidya, watching chuubas, shitposting or in pointless meetings
>work less than 15 minutes a day
>still get a raise because my performance exceeds my coworkers
>eventually leave for the private sector
>get paid more, but actually have to work now
I still can't believe people's taxes were used to pay me 80k/yr to beat my dick raw to hololive scat porn.

>>20152070
Amerucan public schooling is mental circumcision.

>>20153608
why the fuck would you "figure out each persons surplus value"?
>>20153996
>Ultimately, neither taxation nor "surplus value" are theft
so you agree with Marxists? nice
>>20154120
>The value of your labor is not determined by solely by working hours.
you too agree with Marxists? amazin'
>Humans must exploit their environment, to survive
argument by equivocation? that's some advanced stuff anon
>>20154137
yes there were lmao
>>20154165
>>How the fuck do you figure out each persons surplus value.
>You don't - which is why socialism is largely impossible.
abolishing capitalism means the end of surplus value production, so what the fuck does "figuring out each person's surplus value" have to do with the possibility for socialism?
>because, to the Marxist, that is "unjust."
lmao you have no idea what you're talking about
>Wherever the class struggle is thrust aside as a distasteful, “crude” manifestation, the only basis still left to socialism will be a “true love of mankind” and empty phrases about “justice”. https://wikirouge.net/texts/en/Circular_Letter_to_August_Bebel,_Wilhelm_Liebknecht,_Wilhelm_Bracke_and_Others
>Proudhon [contrary to us] demands from present-day society that it shall transform itself not according to the laws of its own economic development, but according to the prescriptions of justice.... Where we prove, Proudhon, and with him Mülberger, preaches and laments....
>Proudhon cloaks his economic ignorance and helplessness by judging all economic conditions not according to economic laws, but according to whether they conform or do not conform to his conception of this eternal justice...
>[J]ustice is never anything but the ideologized, glorified expression of the existing economic relations, at times from the conservative side, at times from the revolutionary side. The justice of the Greeks and Romans held slavery to be just. The justice of the bourgeois of 1789 demanded the abolition of feudalism because it was unjust. For the Prussian Junker even the miserable Kreisordnung is a violation of eternal justice...
>[E]xpressions like right, wrong, justice, conception of justice... create... hopeless confusion in any scientific investigation of economic relations, in fact, much the same confusion as would be create in modern chemistry if the terminology of the phlogiston theory were to be retained. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/housing-question/ch03.htm
>>20154209
>The holodomor, the Great Leap Forward, Pol Pot's can just be ignored because that wasn't real Marxism.
no, they aren't ignored. as great examples of capital's disregard for human life they're important additional historical reasons for the proletariat to abolish capital.

>>20154299
>Value doesn't come from labor. value is subjective.
wrong. the reason why e.g. products of industry are much cheaper than products of land compared to two centuries ago is clearly an objective fact: the difference in technological level of development between 1822 and 2022. and the analogical is true between different branches of industry proper or between different branches of agriculture, and not just across different years.
>If value actually was determined only by socially necessary labor time, then why in the fuck do prices behave the way they do?
because the correspondence between value and price is established chaotically through market anarchy instead of them being tied through a hocus pocus magic string. lol
>The best model for the movement of prices is supply and demand. subjective value is the underlying assumption for supply and demand.
lol what. everything Marx wrote is consistent with supply and demand. he explicitly said that prices are determined through supply and demand. how else would they be determined?
>>20154507
>The surplus value of labor hinges on employers paying laborers less than what they're worth.
no, it hinges on employers paying them exactly what they're worth. back to the books with you.
>>20154571
>Labor doesn't create value. If you move a rock around all day you are laboring hard. It does nothing.
true as fuck. after all, only that labour produces value which produces a commodity and doesn't exceed the amount of labour on average necessary to produce that commodity. it's great to see that pretty much everyone in this thread agrees with Marx.

>>20154759
Damn must've been a ton of labor used to create land then.

>>20151904
>Recommend me books to debunk the labor theory of value.
The first volume of Capital, you just have to keep reading past the first chapter. Read Heinrich's introduction if you're completely retarded and need to have it spelled out for you.

>>20154794
unimproved land has a price because it lets you appropriate rent, not because it has value.

>>20151904
That pic's been deboonked, sweaty

>>20151904
Any Econ 101 book will do, and I'm being serious.
The extreme TL DR is that cooperation is an insanely profitable investment: taxes, company profits, and all that crap is simply the inital cost of such an investment.
If you want a debunking more specifically limited to Marx'd theories, look at how Marx himself copes when confronted with automation.

>>20154759
>it's great to see that pretty much everyone in this thread agrees with Marx.
I know, right? Too many people read Marx and misunderstand him, thinking it's about "abolishing capitalism" or "surplus labor extraction is theft". In reality, evertything Marx said is perfectly in line with modern Neoliberalism. Comrades Bezos and Biden are true communists, and we have to be wary of any bourgeois captialist infiltrators like Lenin, Castro, Mao or Pol Pot who seek to drag us back into then dark ages of Feudalism.

>>20154852
But we are moving toward feudalism again.

>>20154759
>wrong. the reason why e.g. products of industry are much cheaper than products of land compared to two centuries ago is clearly an objective fact: the difference in technological level of development between 1822 and 2022
What? What are "products of industry" to you? You don't even know what you're talking about. LTV doesn't make any sense because human labor time has decreased significantly since 1870, and yet, humanity has more wealth. How are people becoming millionaires, billionaires, how there is a global middle class now if people are working less hours than 2 centuries ago? Clearly your argument is not true - the empirical evidence does not support it.
>abolishing capitalism means the end of surplus value production
Yeah, so , you want to kill the incentive people have towards progress by pushing back to subsistence. What a fucking joke. And no, abolishing capitalism means doing what Pol Pot did. Nobody wants that non-sense. And stop quote spamming bullshit, you retard. Nobody cares about what you're quotiing. We are discussing the implications of your beliefs. That requires critical thinking skills beyond a text. We are discussing those implications, and those implications will not be shown a piece of paper. They will be shown in reality - and we have seen that throughout history that leads people to do.

>>20154730
>The Holodomor, Pol Pot's killing fields and The Great Leap Forward was capitalism's fault
Holy shit, commies can't be real.

>>20154759
You just said the holodomor, the great leap forward and pol pot's policies were capitalism. Deliberate acts of oppression and economic mis-management by communist officials can be blamed on "capitalism." Just like you not having a job is because your parents did not fill out a resume for you. This is a complete fucking joke. You're doing solipsism, and you want people to take you seriously. There's no reason to continue the conversation because clearly you're an idiot. Only an idiot would try hand wave communist atrocities by saying it was done by capitalists like Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot. Get the fuck outta here, retard.

>>20151988
This usually just makes marxists rage about how value can't be subjective which makes me think >>20152996 has essentially the right view.

>>20151904
As Marxists, we reject bourgeois concepts like economics and even more fundamentally, debate, 'truth' and empiricism. It is not my goal to nurture the feelings of an American suckled since birth upon "the marketplace of ideas" by engaging him in argument about a misunderstood version of Marx, but to understand the *objective* historical forces moving us towards communism.

Libertarians vs communism is jews pilpulling each other out of boredom and to distract the gentiles. Seriously look up the history of communism and of libertarianism, it's all neurotic jews.

>>20151904
It can't be dubunked. Unlike other socio-economic theories, marxism is a science. You may as well ask us to "debunk" physics.

>>20154185
Janitors receive no pay and it should stay that way.

>>20154852
meds
>>20154917
>What? What are "products of industry" to you?
you really cant figure out what I mean by products of industry vs of land? the relative price of e.g. shovels has dramatically fallen relatively to the price of e.g. wheat, because of objective facts, such as the objective development of industrial technology and the objective difference in natural limits to the application of such development to growing food vs making tools.
>LTV doesn't make any sense because human labor time has decreased significantly since 1870, and yet, humanity has more wealth.
lol, you can't even account for absolute vs per capita numbers. go retake 4th grade math or something. world's population is almost 6x higher now than it was in 1870.
>How are people becoming millionaires, billionaires, how there is a global middle class now if people are working less hours than 2 centuries ago?
total working hours are more than in 1870, unless people worked like 50 hours per day back then. moreover, the development of technology and the effects of scale allow for producing more use values with the same expenditure of labour.
>Clearly your argument is not true
which one?
>Yeah, so , you want to kill the incentive people have towards progress by pushing back to subsistence.
no. people will still want their lives to be pleasant after capitalism is abolished, not just to survive. it's human nature, not capitalism.
>And no, abolishing capitalism means doing what Pol Pot did.
Pol Pot created a state-wide capitalist enterprise for producing export rice in order to earn money for industrialization, i.e. for development of advanced capitalism. this is the opposite of abolishing it.
>Nobody cares about what you're quotiing.
if someone doesn't care and doesn't want to read quotes from Marxists about what they think of justice, then they just shouldn't talk about what Marxists think of justice. very simple
>We are discussing the implications of your beliefs.
if you don't understand what the beliefs are even at a basic level, then you're in no position to talk about what their supposed implications are.
>They will be shown in reality - and we have seen that throughout history that leads people to do.
you haven't seen shit because you don't even know what to look for
>>20154927
I don't care about assigning moral blame, especially to non-agents. but sure, capitalist revolution is a facet of capitalism.
>>20154948
>Deliberate acts of oppression and economic mis-management by communist officials can be blamed on "capitalism."
deliberate acts by agents of bourgeois states acting towards the goal of building developed national capitalism in place of old pre-capitalist economies are facets of capitalism, yes.
>There's no reason to continue the conversation because clearly you're an idiot. Only an idiot would try hand wave communist atrocities by saying it was done by capitalists like Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot.
lmao nice performative outrage. read a book once you're done crying

excellent bait good show old boy

>>20155039
Locke was a jew?