/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17045932]

Reminder that Marx didn't have a labor theory of value.

[Anonymous No.17045948]

>As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.
t. Karl Marx

[Anonymous No.17045964]

>>17045932
Why can’t marxists talk plainly?

[Anonymous No.17045965]

>>17045948
I don't believe youwu

[Anonymous No.17045968]

>>17045948
It's literally in the first fucking pages too

[Anonymous No.17045974]

>>17045964
Because the world is more complicated than
>billionaires are job creators so we should cut their taxes and the wealth will trickle down

[Anonymous No.17045984]

>>17045974
Not Marx, that's just socdem autism.

[Anonymous No.17045989]

Leftism has not worked a single time.

[Anonymous No.17046002]

>>17045989
This nigger was borderline illiterate

[Anonymous No.17046006]

>>17045974
>Just plan everything bro
Ah yes, complexity

[Anonymous No.17046017]

>>17046006
Cockshott debunked Mises and Hayek was debunked by reality

[Anonymous No.17046035]

marx was right about his criticisms of capitalism but he was wrong about the solution. lazy commiefag should have gone to work instead to learn how the real world works

[Anonymous No.17046040]

>>17046017
>Hayek was debunked by reality
But Marx wasn't? Fucking kek, you'll never be a woman

[Anonymous No.17046055]

>>17046040
>But Marx wasn't?
Uh no? He was vindicated.

[Anonymous No.17046058]

>>17045964
Why can't conservatives clearly answer questions?

[Anonymous No.17046057]

>>17046017
Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, Böhm-Bawerk et al are yet to be refuted you retarded leftist. Meanwhile socialism has never ever worked.

[Anonymous No.17046074]

>>17045932
I'm pretty sure if Marx was still alive he would be a trap and brap poster

[Anonymous No.17046090]

>>17046057
Mises was explicitly refuted by Cockshott. Also what does socialism have to do with Marxism?

[Anonymous No.17046104]

>>17046055
>LTV completely blown the fuck out by marginalists
>none of his predictions turn out
For fuck's sake anon, Marx predicts infinitely linear gains to labor.

[Anonymous No.17046107]

>>17046090
No he wasn't you inbred.

>what does leftism have to do with leftism
They are both retarded and have a success rate of zero. Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.17046137]

>>17046055
Nice graph, shame that everytime your garbage unprovable bullshit gets tested it turns out to be a total failure, next time maybe?

[Anonymous No.17046143]

>>17046002
He unironically wrote the best introduction to Marx written in recent years

[Anonymous No.17046149]

>>17046104
>Marx predicts infinitely linear gains
I haven’t read Marx: the post.
> Now we have seen that it is a law of capitalist production that its development is attended by a relative decrease of variable in relation to constant capital, and consequently to the total capital set in motion. This is just another way of saying that owing to the distinctive methods of production developing in the capitalist system the same number of labourers, i.e., the same quantity of labour-power set in motion by a variable capital of a given value, operate, work up and productively consume in the same time span an ever-increasing quantity of means of labour, machinery and fixed capital of all sorts, raw and auxiliary materials-and consequently a constant capital of an ever-increasing value.

>This continual relative decrease of the variable capital vis-à-vis the constant, and consequently the total capital, is identical with the progressively higher organic composition of the social capital in its average. It is likewise just another expression for the progressive development of the social productivity of labour, which is demonstrated precisely by the fact that the same number of labourers, in the same time, i.e., with less labour, convert an ever-increasing quantity of raw and auxiliary materials into products, thanks to the growing application of machinery and fixed capital in general. To this growing quantity of value of the constant capital – although indicating the growth of the real mass of use-values of which the constant capital materially consists only approximately – corresponds a progressive cheapening of products. Every individual product, considered by itself, contains a smaller quantity of labour than it did on a lower level of production, where the capital invested in wages occupies a far greater place compared to the capital invested in means of production. The hypothetical series drawn up at the beginning of this chapter expresses, therefore, the actual tendency of capitalist production. This mode of production produces a progressive relative decrease of the variable capital as compared to the constant capital, and consequently a continuously rising organic composition of the total capital. The immediate result of this is that the rate of surplus-value, at the same, or even a rising, degree of labour exploitation, is represented by a continually falling general rate of profit. (We shall see later [Ch. 14] why this fall does not manifest itself in an absolute form, but rather as a tendency toward a progressive fall.)

>The progressive tendency of the general rate of profit to fall is, therefore, just an expression peculiar to the capitalist mode of production of the progressive development of the social productivity of labour.

[Anonymous No.17046156]

>>17045932
Commies changing history when it becomes inconvenient. Some things never change

[Anonymous No.17046165]

>>17046149
words to big

[Anonymous No.17046167]

>>17046165
Maybe >>>/pol/ is your speed then.

[Anonymous No.17046193]

He did but not in the sense Marxists believe he did
It's also largely unrelated to his theory of exploitation though he uses similar words
>>17046149
You don't know what any of these words actually mean and you made fanfic out of them
There's a reason Schumpeter told people to read everyone he was responding to before actually reading Marx
Also theory was a completely alien concept to Marx, Gramsci pulled it out of his ass to justify being a parasite and it was peddled by Althusser.

[Anonymous No.17046198]

>LTV

No, thanks.

[Anonymous No.17046245]

>>17046193
>You don't know what any of these words actually mean
That is Marx explicitly outlining the fact that a falling rate of profit is endemic to the capitalist mode of production, which is a historical fact, and didn’t predict a linear increase of profit with labor (lmao). You need to get a grip.

[Anonymous No.17046254]

>>17046035
I bet you haven't read Marx beyond maybe the manifesto, you think you are bright but you really aren't.

[Anonymous No.17046272]

>>17045948
He used it only to emphasize wage theft. If you had made it tk vol. 3 you would have seen him abandon it. I agree that it's a poor decision, but that's how it was written. The first two volumes were more descriptive and were critiques, the third was more prescriptive and exchanges the LTOV for a more vague theory...of value. It really is quite different though.

[Anonymous No.17046274]

>>17046245
He was talking about labor, not profit, retard. You don't even understand your own ideology, sad

[Anonymous No.17046298]

>>17046274
> This mode of production produces a progressive relative decrease of the variable capital as compared to the constant capital, and consequently a continuously rising organic composition of the total capital. The immediate result of this is that the rate of surplus-value, at the same, or even a rising, degree of labour exploitation, is represented by a continually falling general rate of profit.
Your desperate flailing is amusing.

[Anonymous No.17046314]

>>17046245
>didn’t predict a linear increase of profit with labor (lmao)
Where the fuck did I say that nigger?
Marx didn't outline shit you shithead
Both Smith and Ricardo believed in it
Obviously they are all wrong but that's not the point
You are taking words, whose meaning you don't know, and flinging them around carelessly
Would you care to define Marxian value for me? What does it actually mean?
Again, never post about Marx again until you've read Smith, Ricardo, a bit about Say and the utopian socialists
>Wowsers folks, I read a critique of a bunch of books I have never read. I will now take the modern definitions of words and use my retarded charts, also robbed of any context, to prove... Something
>ALSO, MUH THEORY

[Anonymous No.17046329]

>>17046314
This is such an embarrassing post.

[Anonymous No.17046335]

Reminder if your critique of capitalism is grounded in instability, unfair rent distribution, or struggles between sociological classes, you're to marx essentially utopian & advocating for the sort of socialism the schumpeters of the world found reconcilable with capitalism. if you think the real meat of the problem is simply that surplus value extraction is unfair you'd be much better adjusted being a georgist or roemerian coupon socialist type, a lot less to figure out.
a critique of capitalism is properly grounded in all human life becoming through its embedding in commodity relations merely an appendage of unthinking capital sitting over us and brooking no escape.

[Anonymous No.17046355]

>>17046329
Tongue my anus nigger

[Anonymous No.17046381]

>>17046298
Falling rate of profit is not falling of productivity, but go ahead, keep quoting shit you don't understand.

[Anonymous No.17046384]

>>17046314
very cringe

[Anonymous No.17046405]

>>17045964
because the ideas have no substance, the terminology is just there to mask that

[Anonymous No.17046436]

>>17046272
Marx never gives a prescriptive theory of value in Capital.
>>17046137
>your garbage unprovable bullshit gets tested it turns out to be a total failure
is it unfalsifiable or falsified? it can't be both

[Anonymous No.17046450]

>>17046335
I just post the word neoliberal on 4chan every day. If Marx would have a problem with that approach he was probably a crypto-neolib.

[Anonymous No.17046454]

>>17045948
>>17045968
>>17046104
>>17046156

Since the labour theory of value has been generally discredited, it is then often authoritatively stated that Marx’s theories are worthless. But nowhere, in fact, did Marx declare his allegiance to the labour theory of value. That theory belonged to Ricardo, who recognized that it was deeply problematic even as he insisted that the question of value was critical to the study of political economy. On the few occasions where Marx comments directly on this matter,1 he refers to “value theory” and not to the labour theory of value.

In the labor theory presented at the beginning of Capital, exchange is
explained in terms of a natural feature of commodities, the amount of labor-
power required for their replacement. Exploitation is also conceived of in
terms of a natural feature, the difference between the value of labor-power
and the value it produces. Only appropriation is treated as the outcome of
a social process.
By the end of the final volume of Capital, though, both exchange and
exploitation are recognized for the social processes that they are. Each
depends on the capitalist’s ability to appropriate surplus, rather than on
any objective feature of the labor process or the commodities produced. It is
because exchange is a social process that its confrontation of those involved
as a natural process is a fetish. All commodities are made commensurable
by capitalist appropriation, not vice-versa. The subtitle of Capital is ‘a
critique of political economy’: as critique, it investigates the conditions and
limits of exchange. It turns out that exchange is conditioned not by prior
exchangeability, but by the appropriation of surplus by those who control
the means of production. That is why “the products of labor acquire a
uniform social status.”27 It is also the answer to the question that “political
economy has never thought to ask,” i. e. “why labor is represented by the
value of its product and labor time by the magnitude of that value.” Labor
is measured by the value of its product because the capitalist buys it for
what it can produce. Labor-power is the source of surplus value because it
is purchased on the basis of its ability to produce not physical surplus, but
surplus value. Labor, initially the shared feature of commodities, turns out
to be ‘abstract’ in capitalist production not because it is all interchangeable,
but because capitalist social relations make it so.

[Anonymous No.17046516]

>>17045964
Because they created a complex system of thought which sound coerent in theory but doesn't work and probably will never in practice. They need to talk like this to convince normies and midwits that they're smart and they will solve all their problem.

[Anonymous No.17046526]

>>17046436
I said "more" prescriptive.
>>17046454
If you're dumb, Marx's theory can't be the LTOV since the LTOV states labor as the concrete shared feature of commodities. Marx, isntead posited that labor is "abstract" not because it's interchangeable, but because capitalist social relations(the sum total of social relationships that people must enter into in order to survive, to produce, and to reproduce their means of life.)force labor to be abstract and interchangeable.

[Anonymous No.17046771]

>>17046526
>I said "more" prescriptive.
he doesn't give a theory of value that's prescriptive to any degree

[Anonymous No.17046775]

>>17046454
>Since the labour theory of value has been generally discredited
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.17047238]

>>17046137
Capitalism is, in 2020, a total failure. You are literally defending a terminally ill mode of production.
By the way, due to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, paired with market saturation, Capitlaism died in 2008. Of course, until niggers like you notice this, many years can still pass.

[Anonymous No.17047254]

>>17046454
>Since the labour theory of value has been generally discredited,
By whom? Bourgeois economists? Because we have the same clows with doctors. Lying for bigpharma.
By the way:
https://www.academia.edu/2733004/The_empirical_strength_of_the_labour_theory_of_value

[Anonymous No.17047256]

>>17047238
>Capitalism is, in 2020, a total failure
There will be leftists saying this in 2120 and 2220 no doubt