/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17671363]

Marxchads...I kneel...

[Anonymous No.17671365]

>>17671363
Stand up.

[Anonymous No.17671375]

>>17671363
in a economy that uses fiat currencies, who creates the vast majority of money? can marx answer this question?

[Anonymous No.17671378]

>>17671365
Social contract theory is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.17671393]

>>17671378
Rise, damn you!

[Anonymous No.17671433]

>>17671393
Are you posting the A*glo canon? Is Bentham next?

[Anonymous No.17671451]

>>17671363
based value-form poster
>>17671378
Marx himself was a social contract theorist

[Anonymous No.17671453]

>>17671363
>Rubin
pass

[Anonymous No.17671467]

>>17671451
No he wasn't.

[Anonymous No.17671468]

I stand.

[Anonymous No.17671479]

>>17671433
Those doubles won’t save you when the time comes.

[Anonymous No.17671540]

>>17671467
Prove it

[Anonymous No.17671579]

>>17671363
btfo'd by Austrian Economics.

[Anonymous No.17671599]

>>17671540
Why do you think he's a social contract theorist? He knew the state rose out of class domination.

[Anonymous No.17671615]

>>17671579
Lol no

[Anonymous No.17672738]

>>17671363
what is the value-form?

[Anonymous No.17672746]

>>17671378
So it was marx's theory of value.

[Anonymous No.17672792]

>>17672746
no

[Anonymous No.17672806]

>>17672792
Yes. Any person with half a brain can debunk this brainlet tier theory.

[Anonymous No.17672862]

I'm reading Vol.1 right now and I find it very interesting but I'm not sure if I want to finish it because it takes so much time to read, not because of its length but because of the content. Most of the time I have to re-read the concepts he's talking about in order to really understand them.
Should I just read it quickly without looking at the details just like 90% of the people who allegedly read it?

[Anonymous No.17672878]

>>17672746
>>17671378
Yes
I've always wondered why people bother to read thousands of pages of Marxist fanfic but never pick up a book from an actual economist

[Anonymous No.17672890]

>>17672806
cope harder

[Anonymous No.17672891]

Do I read these before or after das kapital

[Anonymous No.17672903]

>>17672862
No you need to read it very closely. You also need to read volume 2 and 3. Also remember that Capital was never finished and Marx's thought was inconsistent because he was constantly revising himself and coming up with new ideas. After you are done make sure to read the thinkers after him the continue his project of critique of political economy. The thinkers presented in OP's pic are some of the best.
Here is also an article by Heinrich that goes over a lot of the misconceptions of Marx that still persist today.
https://mronline.org/2017/11/17/150-years-of-capital-with-no-end-in-sight/

[Anonymous No.17672924]

>>17671579
True
>>17671615
He chose the wrong Jew (I hate that faggot so much) but yes, our Jews were better than yours ',:^)

[Anonymous No.17672927]

I dont understand marxs labour theory of value, how the hell is ascribing value to something based on "Socially necessary labour time" not completely arbitrary and nonsensical

and even if you have a system where you attempt to make use of it, what exactly is stopping the natural laws of supply and demand from forcing prices down if no one is buying?

[Anonymous No.17672940]

>>17672903
he also "revised" his thoughts and in some cases bases is next thoughts on things that he already threw out through these revisions, effectively making marxism little more than a religious cult

[Anonymous No.17672990]

>>17672927
Marx did not have a labor theory of value he had a value theory of labor. I get this from Diane Elson who asked the very important question “what is Marx's theory a theory of?” and the answer she came to is that when Marx talks about value, he’s not coming up with a theory of prices which locates labor as their prime determinant (a theory-of-value which posits labor as its source/substance, ie, a labor theory-of-value) but instead mostly takes the notion of value itself as it’s found in classical political economy (and this is done through what Sam Chambers highlights as a genealogical critique) in order to consider, in a reversal of the Ricardian problem, what value means for labor (a theory-of-labor which focuses on how it is affected by value, ie, a value theory-of-labor). so instead of the classical concern for the regulation of prices by labor-time, Marx is trying to understand how labor itself is regulated by value via the violence of abstraction, domination by time, etc. If you read the first chapter of capital like this, especially with Holloway’s piece on the way to read the very first sentence in mind, the text becomes wildly different. Socially necessary labor time ceases to be a mere economic term which is arrived at theoretically but a kind of self-asserting average which compels the laborer to keep pace with the rhythm of the machine and the constantly increasing tempo of the market.
Check out the article by Heinrich posted here. It clears up a lot of the misconceptions of Marx>>17672903

[Anonymous No.17672996]

>>17672927
value ≠ price

[Anonymous No.17673016]

>>17672927
it's stupid and people who believe it are literally stupid

[Anonymous No.17673053]

>>17672927
It's fundamentally retarded so don't bother with it.
Value may be determined by many variables, labour, utility, intrinsic value, etc., but we cannot make objective statements about which variables matter the most.
This part of Marxism is litterally just a metaphysical assertion (he does this a lot) and is just plain rubbish that cannot be considered scientific at all.
The only thing we can really say about value with confidence is that value is subjective, and is mainly determined by individuals.

[Anonymous No.17673110]

>>17672990
>>17672996
Yes we understand that value is not identical to price but labour still doesn't inherently determine value.
Things that are not due to any amount of labour may still be valuable whilst things that are due to a substantial amount of labour may still be worthless.
There are a lot of things that scale what the value of some labour amounts to so that labour is neither sufficient nor neccesary for value to exist and so that it's corelation to value is nonexistent (more value does not follow from more labour).

[Anonymous No.17673125]

>>17673110
Did you even read my post or the article I posted? >>17672990
I did not say any of that nor did Marx. That is a misconception of Marx.

[Anonymous No.17673148]

>>17672862
It's okay to keep moving if you don't get something, often it won't click until later context. Take notes or include David Harvey's lectures if it helps

[Anonymous No.17673156]

>>17673016
ebin

[Anonymous No.17673225]

>>17672927
It's almost nihilistic, denying differences from different things; yet it gives value to time.
Nothing new, jews have been worshiping Saturn/Kronos for all time.

[Anonymous No.17673260]

>>17673225
True, it's why they insist time is a dimension.
What are you going to do, lol.

[Anonymous No.17673597]

>>17673125
Yes, I've read that silly article and it is complete nonsense. He essentially defends Marx' baseless assertions by making more baseless assertions.
His defence of this line:
>in proportion as capital accumulates, the situation of the worker, be his payment high or low, must grow worse
was pure cope.
It's blatantly obvious that the real conditions of the prole have become, in developed, capitalist nations, extremely good.
IQ is higher, literacy is better, we have advanced telecommunications and computers and can read and learn about anything we want to on demand.
Energy is cheaper and people, largely, now no longer freeze to death in their house during the winter. There are more millionaires now, among adults, than there were before.
Wealth inequality is not wrong in of its self but its obvious that the extreme wealth disparity that does exist is due to government granted monopolies (to big to fail, etc.) and the lack of taxation on land (Henry George BTFOd that faggot Marx years ago). The innovative engine of capitalism only improves conditions for everyone.
Inflation, taxes, and massive regulation (esp. zoning laws and shit like that) are what really hurt people.

His defence of Marx' theory of value and your stupid picture still struggle to show how Marx' theory can be understood scientifically; the problem is it can't, it's metaphysical and therefore useless in explaining economical phenomena.

[Anonymous No.17673639]

>>17673597
Nope you haven't read the article because right after he elaborates
>But, what is envisioned by this “growing worse”? It is not any kind of “total impoverishment”, as the addition of “be his payment high or low” makes very clear. Marx’s point is formulated a few sentences later: “Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, the torment of labour, slavery, ignorance, brutalization and moral degradation at the opposite pole” (ibid.). With the capitalist unfettering of the forces of production, the wealth of society as a whole increases, but it is not only distributed very unequally; the development of the forces of production, oriented solely towards profit, occurs at the cost of wage workers, even when wages increase. Marx demonstrates extensively in Capital how even elementary rules of accident- and health-protection could only be implemented against the bitter resistance of capitalists, and how “more productive” technology was frequently accompanied by increased psychological stress. But, that everything fought for as a protective measure for wage workers and in part codified in laws of the state is in no way secured for all eternity, is demonstrated precisely by developments in Germany in the last decades. From the regulation of breaks in workplaces to protection against termination to the expansion of (usually more poorly paid) temporary work was changed in the last twenty years—and primarily during the period of a Red-Green national government—by a number of regulations and laws to the disadvantage of wage workers, so that their living and working conditions in part became considerably more insecure, even if wages haven’t declined.

[Anonymous No.17673649]

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.17673980]

>>17673639
Yes I did you obtuse faggot, I responded to that exact statement.
Marx had no idea where wages would go but he just assumed that either way life would still be shittier for some reason.
Material conditions have improved but Marx asserts that this only implies that there is wealth disparity and worse moral, and psychological condition among the masses (whatever this means). I have already touched on both of those assertions in my earlier comment.
The authour then goes on to talk about German politics. He mentions that regulations that become codified are not permanent; this, in my opinion, is simply because regulations are anti-efficiency and often get in the way of the ideal relations between employer and employee.
To take an example from American politics, California Assembly Bill 5 (2019) utterly destroyed a lot of peoples sources of income in the name of "protecting workers in an unfair gig economy". Ironically, a bunch of jurnos at Vox wrote articles supporting it but after it passed Vox had to let go of a lot those workers. Musicians, Artists, writers, etc. were massivley affected by this law, which, btw, gave exemptions to 100 professions. How is that fair? It's straight up retarded.

[Anonymous No.17674051]

>>17673053
>assumes that his definition of value is the same as marx's
>thinks marx was trying to make "objective" rankings of values
>filthy relativist on top
wow you really made a point there buddy. hundreds of pages of theory debunked by annoyed frog poster. congratulations

[Anonymous No.17674097]

>>17671378
So is Marxism

[Anonymous No.17674185]

>>17672940
Yeah it has a lot in common with other jewish religious movements.

[Anonymous No.17674208]

>Moishe Postone
>Professor of History at the University of Chicago
>part of the committee on Jewish studies
>co-editor of Catastrophe and Meaning: The Holocaust and the Twentieth Century
>Postone's work has had a large influence on the anti-Germans
>The basic standpoint of the anti-Germans includes opposition to German nationalism, a critique of mainstream left anti-capitalist views, which are thought to be simplistic and structurally anti-Semitic, and a critique of anti-Semitism, which is considered to be deeply rooted in German cultural history.

You really couldn't make this shit up even if you tried!

[Anonymous No.17674235]

>>17674208
All of these are based, especially if you like German culture, something that was more or less eradicated by the nationalist movement.

[Anonymous No.17674276]

>>17674235
>In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of the bombing of Dresden, anti-Germans praised the bombing on the grounds that so many of the city's civilians had supported Nazism. Kyle James points to this as an example of a shift towards support for the United States that became more pronounced after 9/11. Similar demonstrations are annually held, the slogans "Bomber Harris, do it again!" and "Deutsche Täter sind keine Opfer!" ("German perpetrators are no victims!") have become common.

[Anonymous No.17674287]

>>17674208
Why do NatSocs always think this vindicates their Judeo-Bolshevism conspiracy theory when there's like 5000 examples of Jews being the complete opposite of Marxists or Communists, like fucking Milton Friedman or Ben Shapiro.

[Anonymous No.17674302]

>>17674208
Lol. Absolute state of leftists. They never cease to surprise me with how pathetic they actually are.
>>17674235
>>17674287
God the cope is so desperate and weak. Delicious.

[Anonymous No.17674305]

>>17674208
What's the matter? Why don't you accept that leftism is primarily about Jews and its leading figures are Jews and you should admire and protect Jews and have you given money to your local Jew today? Jewish Studies is very Jewish important you know, Jewish jewish is Jewish and Jews Jewish Judaism Jews.

[Anonymous No.17674313]

>>17674208
>Modern antisemitism and the destruction of the abstract
>In his 1986 article, "Anti-Semitism and National Socialism", Postone developed new thinking on modern antisemitism, and particularly on National Socialist ideology. Postone saw antisemitism as a major element in the development of a socio-historical theory of consciousness determined by social forms that are subjected to socialization under capitalism. What is said about modern antisemitism may also describe a trend of vulgar anti-capitalism that seeks the personification of the elements of capitalism that are so hated. Postone showed that modern antisemitism is very different from most forms of racism and Christian antisemitism; it differs from them because it casts a huge global invisible power of international Jewry, the idea of a global conspiracy that is intrinsic to modern antisemitism.

>Postone analyzed antisemitism against the Marxian notion of the dual character of the commodity category. And he observed that the characteristics that antisemitism attributes to Jews are the same as for value: abstraction, invisibility, automation, impersonal domination. Postone argued that the form of socialization under capitalism (the historically specific function of the spirit of labour under capitalism) makes it possible to separate the concrete (as socially "natural" sound, true, etc.). This opposition between the concrete and the abstract, determined by social forms, pervades all forms of subjectivity, and thus helps to understand a central feature of the National Socialist ideology, because this ideology was not fundamentally anti-modern and it would be wrong to label it as such. It is true, Postone argued, that Nazism claimed to defend the peasantry and craftsmanship, but it also valued modern technological and industrial production. Nazism was rather a vulgar form of anti-capitalism. The rejection of the bourgeoisie and its values is present in Nazism, but Postone saw Nazi ideology as the affirmation of the concrete dimension - which includes technology and industrial production, as well as the peasantry and manual labor - as the heart of healthy social life, organic, contrasted to the abstract dimension represented by finance capital. The abstract is instead rejected - and it is personified by the Jews. Postone analyzed the figure of the Jew in modern antisemitism as the embodiment of abstract value, and extermination camps as a misbegotten notion of a "factory" to destroy value.

[Anonymous No.17674316]

>>17673649
This tranny spams this in every marx cope thread. He believes it's that profound.

[Anonymous No.17674325]

>>17674302
>God the cope is so desperate and weak. Delicious.

not an argument you brainlet

[Anonymous No.17674386]

>>17674051
Love the snark you utter muppet.
I don't care what Marx was trying to do, I just care about whether it represents an objective understanding of reality.
How am I a relativist? All I said was that value is clearly subjective, which is obvious.
If you want an actual refutation of Marx read George, Böhm-Bawerk, and Schumpeter (esp. him).
Now piss off faggot.

[Anonymous No.17674388]

>>17674313
All these words serve to do is to wrap the modern day parasite in a shimmering cloak which reflects the critic's gaze back upon himself. Observe how this miasma props itself up on marxist rhetoric as if to legitimize it's subjectivity, transforming itself into an imposed truth. Nature gave us eyes to see and a mind to interpret the nature of reality. What better proof can one have of the subversive, insidious nature of this immortal parasite than the very acts by which it is made to reveal itself. Yet it would have us first believe that we are blind to the truth, then that we are prisoners of ignorance, further that we misunderstand the nature of reality. Shine a light on the parasite and suddenly it recoils, aghast, as if caught in some unspeakable act; witness it vanish in a cloud of smoke and leave you questioning whether you even saw it. It really is so tiring.

[Anonymous No.17674402]

>>17673260
>What are you going to do, lol.
I consider myself, not Antichrist, but Antiabraham; I am ready and willing to never torture babies to get what I want, despite living on this planet.

[Anonymous No.17674408]

>>17674316
kek.

[Anonymous No.17674433]

>>17673016
god i hate that comic

[Anonymous No.17674438]

>>17673597
>It's blatantly obvious that the real conditions of the prole have become, in developed, capitalist nations, extremely good.
Are you dumb?

[Anonymous No.17674471]

>>17671599
its not hard to make that inference.

The state arising out of class domination whilst a group of proletariat (i.e. middle-class/lower-class society) would still need a set of rules as embodied through a law and constitution to maintain some form of social order.

tl;dr class domination vis-a-vis marxian analysis and social contract theory aren't mutually exclusive (see gramsci) lol

[Anonymous No.17674475]

>>17674471

whist the proletariat are appeased*

[Anonymous No.17675401]

>>17674438
No faggot, I've experienced being poor and compared to the country me and my parents immigrated from (a backwards commie nation at the time) I was way better off than my cousins.
Seriously, you faggots have no idea what poor means. You retards just sit at home playing on your PlayStation with the heater on (drinking? eating? injecting?) your HRT (Tranny juice) and then come on here (undialated) to shit up the thread talking about how capitalism is bad. You would have been BTFOd if you actually lived in a leftist nation, kek.
But seriously, tell me how real conditions haven't improved...

[Anonymous No.17675467]

>>17672924
What's wrong with Rothbard?

[Anonymous No.17675519]

Reminder that you can psyop pseuds into reading whatever retarded esoteric books you want just by autistically spamming them 1000s of times on /lit/

[Anonymous No.17675527]

>>17675519
None of those are "esoteric"

[Anonymous No.17675531]

>>17671579
why do we keep WINNING Australia bros?

[Anonymous No.17675536]

>>17675519
and that principle applies to everything

[Anonymous No.17675561]

>>17675527
Literally who authors
>>17675536
I don't think it would work as well with a well-known book. The spam gives the illusion of popularity which is half of it. The obscure aspect makes you feel like you're part of select few that's "in the know", which is the ultimate desire of any /lit/ pseud.

[Anonymous No.17676019]

>>17675467
1. I'm a (geo-)libertarian but I reject anarcho-capitalism
2. His beliefs tend towards a caricature of my beliefs, viz. right-liberalism (much like Rand but not as bad as Block)
3. To expand on that last point a little, for example, I find his views and beliefs on family and children absolutely abhorrent.
3. He's probably a pedo tbqh
5. He's a Jew
To be fair he has done some pretty decent scholarly work on the history of liberal thought and if you get the chance I do incourage you to read these books since they are much more palatable than his own beliefs.
I don't stress that you do though, even if you never do read him, I'm sure you won't miss much.
However, I do stress that you read Sowell, Nozick, Hayek, Hazlitt, Schumpeter, Pareto, Walras, George, Bastiat, Smith, the Physiocrats*, and Cantillon (Fuck me, I should make a book chart guide to Based Political-Economy, there are a lot of people here that I haven't mentioned but these are basically essential.)

*You can skip the Physiocrats if you want, their ideas are intimately related to their context but they had a lot of immortal ideas that are worth returning too.

[Anonymous No.17676189]

>>17673597
Have you ever taken calc? or even algebra? Why are people who critique marx always mathematically illiterate? What do you think
>in proportion
means?

How many times have you had this argument and someone tells you "in aggregate" and you ignore them and point at isolated values?

>>17673597
>Energy is cheaper and people, largely, now no longer freeze to death in their house during the winter.
https://www.newsweek.com/michigan-freeland-freezes-death-home-1487736
https://abc13.com/hypothermia-deaths-freezing-to-death-texas-cold-weather-winter-storms/10357317/
https://nypost.com/2021/02/22/robbers-hit-home-of-elderly-texas-woman-who-froze-to-death/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/19/us/texas-deaths-winter-storm.html

>>17675401
>But seriously, tell me how real conditions haven't improved

"in proportion"

[Anonymous No.17676206]

>>17676189
the fucking LTV isn't even about labor or value, its a demonstration of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall as mechanical and technological efficiency improves the rate of production.
You have 5 weavers make enough money to buy a loom so you fire the 5 weavers and higher 1 loom technician and pocket the difference. Now theres 4 hobos outside. Proportionally(in proportion) there is now more inequality.

QED.

read a book

[Anonymous No.17676238]

>>17676206
but that's fallacy since the economy grew because those four laborers can now go do something else productive.

[Anonymous No.17676261]

>>17676019
>"Now if a parent may own his child... then he may... give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children." - Murray Rothbard
Oof. I guess I'll have to look into arguments for geo-libertarianism.

[Anonymous No.17676267]

>>17673597
i know george is hip among tech bros because he wants to soak the landlords instead of the rich technologists, but we already have property tax, how does that solve inequality? i'm legitimately asking, how is that supposed to work, do you think amazon doesn't pay property on the land its warehouses are on? i don't get it, it sounds like some dumb stuff tech bros who are made about high rents in san francisco but don't want to blame capitalism use to cope

[Anonymous No.17676346]

>>17673980
All you're expressing is a series of discounted obfuscations: a social safety is the product of millions of workers battling for better working conditions during a period of centuries, up to the present day. This put sufficient pressure on capitalist governments so that social safety nets were created. However, in the US capitalists were able to use racism to better divide the working class and social safety nets have consequently been much weaker than in Western Europe or Canada. The US, with the advent of neoliberalism, has also used "labor flexibility" (part of the absence of a safety net) as a competitive advantage over Western Europe. However, the US itself fell victim to this logic (or rather it's workers did doubly) when employment massively migrated to China which of course has even less of a safety net than in the US. The reality is that American society is becoming inexorably more parasitical on its citizens, millions upon millions of whom are more or less permanently unemployed or underemployed but nevertheless being economically exploited by law enforcement monetary fines and confiscations, private prison incarceration, or even simply by turning their internet browsing into profit extractable activities without having to give them any remuneration. On the other hand, a politically connected millionaire is hooked into a financialized system (Wall Street) that essentially a simulacrum of what your broker pretends it to be. Major investment houses are increasingly making of the stock market a virtual world, a matrix, an Oz, where an a AI-heavy version of the security state is not only constantly peaking behind the curtain of the phenomena it's supposedly fairly betting on, it owns the "curtain", which is alive with information gathering devices, i.e. the whole computational fabric of the market becomes one vast espionage device shared betwixt the most powerful institutional players in a nation's financial sector and beyond.

[Anonymous No.17676379]

>>17676238
see
>>17676189

Why do you think automation is a hot topic? Why cant anyone who critiques marx ever think in systems with more than one variable?
>tendancy
>rate
>proportion
As technology increases, society as a whole will have less jobs, and the only people making money are those who can afford the barrier to entry or already own robots. If you model society as a whole in a multivariable equation with the current system you will get more consolidation of mega corporations and more money, property etc concentrating in the hands of fewer and fewer people while jobs disappear.

[Anonymous No.17676384]

>>17676379
Very clear and logically put.

[Anonymous No.17676411]

>>17676189
Marx himself didn't understand calculus

[Anonymous No.17676444]

>>17674386
go back to reading sam harris you "objective realist" scum

[Anonymous No.17676452]

>>17676411
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Mathematical_Manuscripts_1881.pdf

[Anonymous No.17676471]

>>17676452
That's what I'm basing it on, if you read it you see that he totally misunderstands calculus

[Anonymous No.17676506]

>>17676471
I think you are trying to say that you disagree with him. He clearly understood it. Or are you going to tell me Leibniz misunderstood calculus too?

[Anonymous No.17676511]

>>17676471
"According to Hubert C. Kennedy, Marx "[...] seems to have been unaware of the advances being made by continental mathematicians in the foundations of differential calculus, including the work of Cauchy." In the same text, Kennedy says "While Marx's analysis of the derivative and differential had no immediate effect on the historical development of mathematics, Engels' claim that Marx made "independent discoveries" is certainly justified. Marx's operational definition of the differential anticipated 20th century developments in mathematics, and there is another aspect of the differential, that seems to have been seen by Marx, that has become a standard part of modern textbooks—the concept of the differential as the principal part of an increment.", implying that Marx's apprehension and interpretation of calculus was far from short-sighted. This may have contributed to an interest in nonstandard analysis among Chinese mathematicians (Dauben 1998)."

[Anonymous No.17676512]

Who cares about some bearded germans book. Shits not even relevant why do people care so much? No body cares about him except to check out something obscure like a teenage listening to he beatles when they are actually a shitty band. We live in a capitalist world morons.

[Anonymous No.17676648]

>>17676444
Never read him, cope.
>>17676267
>i know george is hip among tech bros
Honestly don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
If you seriously are interested and aren't simply trying to mock Georgism, look up the Henry George theorem, the governments of the world only need one single tax.
Why should rents be high? why should people pay income taxes (or any other tax for that matter)? Why should the poor suffer?
Land is the single most useful asset in the world, none other can compare. No one owns land because no one but God created it so a tax on it is the least bad tax imaginable.
At the same time property and capitalism is needed to produce value efficiently through the market system. George BTFOs Marx and is litterally on the "right side of history" when it comes to objectively correct economics, kek.
Every single worthwhile economist since even before Smith has realized the inherent value of Land and the efficiency in taxing it.
In addition to this, a UBI would pair well with a tax on land.
Read Progress and Poverty and you will understand. Free trade, free land, and free people!
>>17676189
What the hell? I'm studying Algebraic number theory and Category theory rn and I'm not doing so bad. What's the point of making statements like that?
My point is, is that there is no point in looking at proportion because what actually matters is real base conditions and economic mobility.
Who gives a shit if my neighbour is doing better than me if I'm doing good and could catch up if I tried hard enough?
The current system impedes on economic mobility through taxes, inflation, regulation, social programs, etc., if we didn't have these things people would do pretty well with the money they get from work and would have a lot more space to do better.

[Anonymous No.17676670]

>>17676648
Oh and before you say anything, though the theorem is proved in an idealized model, even an inneficient land value tax would be extremely effient (even to the point of surplus).
Land value has soared since the time of George, just think what value there is in one acre in Manhattan...

[Anonymous No.17676678]

>>17676648
>if I'm doing good and could catch up if I
No one gives a fuck about your neighbor and especially not you. LTV isn't about you.
>The current system impedes on economic mobility through taxes, inflation, regulation, social programs, etc.,
>if we didn't have these things people would do
Wrong. It impedes *your* mobility. We aren't talking about you. If we didn't have these things YOU would do blah blah blah no one asked. We are talking about society. Use your algebriac number theory to look up what a "system" is.

>>17676648
>My point is, is that there is no point in looking at proportion
Then you aren't arguing with Marx or even addressing him.

[Anonymous No.17676696]

>>17676648
Another absolutely illiterate comment, congratulations!

[Anonymous No.17676709]

>>17676670
>land land land land
Youre like half way there. Value is land+labour. Maybe think of it as 'cost' in your head every time Marx says value. If you are ultra autistic im sure you could find a way to equate it to joules or calories.