/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4830488]

Why do Liberals always try to debunk Marx with such inane, misunderstandings of Marx's work?

>Marx thought that capitalism would have an “apocalyptic” end but thanks to “modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge” that has been avoided. But there is still the problem of the “deep structures of capital inequality”. p1

>“either the rate of return on capital would steadily diminish (thereby killing the engine of accumulation and leading to violent conflict among capitalists) or capital’s share of national income would increase indefinitely until the workers went into revolt.” p9

>“like his predecessors Marx totally neglected the possibility of durable technological progress and steadily increasing productivity, which is a force that can to some extent serve as a counterweight to the process of accumulation and concentration of capital” p10

>“Marx’s theory implicitly relies on a strict assumption of zero productivity growth over the long run”. p27

>“the rate of return on capital is a central concept in many economic theories. In particular, Marxist analysis emphasises the falling rate of profit – a historical prediction that has turned out to be quite wrong, although it does contain an interesting intuition.” p52

>Marx’s r falls because in his model of capitalism, there is “an infinite accumulation of capital” and “as ever more increasing quantities of capital lead inexorably to a falling rate of profit (i.e. return on capital) and eventually to their own downfall, while growth in net income (g) falls to zero.” p252

Serious, what the fuck is this shit?

[Anonymous No.4830505]

>>4830488
>only quoting the books
>gives no argument or whatsoever
thread hidden

[Anonymous No.4830513]

>>4830505
discussing Marx and not reading Das Kapital.

I only need to post those quotes because they hilariously misunderstand Marx's theory on organic capital accumulation.

>“like his predecessors Marx totally neglected the possibility of durable technological progress and steadily increasing productivity, which is a force that can to some extent serve as a counterweight to the process of accumulation and concentration of capital”

This quote alone, jesus fucking christ.

[Anonymous No.4830531]

>>4830513

the dude uses questionable methodologies throughout the book. are you really surprised that he's not so smart?

as a collection of historical data, Capital in the 21st Century is a fucking phenomenal bit of research. as an analysis of that data... eeeehhhhhh...

[Anonymous No.4830533]

>>4830488
It's the worst. I blame the nonphilosophical foundations of any non-philosophy major at most American universities

[Anonymous No.4830543]

The worst part is the book offers no solutions.
Seriously "Global wealth tax" totally ignores the entire structural issues within Capitalism that lead to inequality. It ignores the power and social structure of Capitalism. How in fuck are you going to implement a global wealth tax, when the rich own everything?
How is that going to end up any different from the 80% tax rate of the mid 20th century?

The book should be offering ALTERNATIVES to Capital, not engaging in a social democrat circlejerk that has already proven to be futile, which the book ironically itself points out.

[Anonymous No.4830549]

>>4830543
It's like these people have never heard of Rawls

[Anonymous No.4830551]

>>4830543

Doesn't he concede in the introduction that more interdisciplinary efforts are necessary for a truly viable solution to be formulated?

[Anonymous No.4830595]

>tfw liberals giving me a nerve itch

[Anonymous No.4830603]

>>4830488
>Serious, what the fuck is this shit?
The answer generally seems to be "don't bother," and "leave it to the political economists for four years."

[Anonymous No.4830618]

http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/product-reviews/067443000X/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

[Anonymous No.4830619]

At least the book is finally creating serious discussion on the direction of neo-liberalism.

Too bad it's just Kenyes 2: Social Democratic Boogaloo

[Anonymous No.4830625]

>>4830618
>All the butthurt Conservatives.

Hahaha, well at least thats another positive.

Amazon should probably delete those reviews though since its obvious none of them have actually read a word of the book.

[Anonymous No.4830635]

>>4830595

what are you the purple pumpernickle

[Anonymous No.4830647]

>>4830619

insult to keynes

[Anonymous No.4830653]

Can someone explain why Capitalism hasn't resulted in shorter work days like Keynes promised?

I should be working a 13 hour work week now according to him.

[Anonymous No.4830657]

>>4830653

distribution of working hours

how much do you think the owners work

[Anonymous No.4830660]

>>4830653

lean corporate ethic

[Anonymous No.4830662]

>>4830657
a lot

[Anonymous No.4830673]

>>4830653
Chapter on Length of the Working Day in Capital Volume 1

[Anonymous No.4830677]

>>4830662

are you talking about the local chip shop or something like BAT

[Anonymous No.4830680]

>>4830673
>babby still believes in materialism

[Anonymous No.4830688]

>>4830680
As you'd know from Marx's work, Capital isn't materialist, it is historically materialist, or socio-culturally determined most strongly by the relations around the material reproduction of society.

[Anonymous No.4830710]

>>4830488

Oh look. A fresh highschool graduate.

I really wish this board could just hide everyone who still hasn't earned a college education. At least then we'd have ac community of people who have actually read something.

[Anonymous No.4830715]

>>4830688

[Anonymous No.4830721]

>>4830688
small modifications and a cloud of new jargon to the old materialist worldview. marx was 100% materialist and so was feuerbach.

[Anonymous No.4830739]

>>4830653
well lots of ppl nowadays have zero hour work weeks. they just dont have jobs

[Anonymous No.4830743]

>>4830721
Fuck off mate. 1/10

[Anonymous No.4830778]

>>4830653
Because that's the social standard. Productivity has nothing do with it. Workers would be as productive working three days a week instead of five. But people can't abide by anything that clashes with their parochial thinking.

[Anonymous No.4830793]

>communists
>2014

lel

[Anonymous No.4831121]

>>4830710
great job mate I think you got him

[Anonymous No.4831128]

>>4830739
If you expand that into suggesting unemployment leads to less working hours in the national average and hide it under a pile of superfluous mathematical equations, this is your first econ thesis right there

[Anonymous No.4831162]

>>4830488

People have been trying to "debunk Marx" since Bastiat or something and people are still trying to debunk Marx. Maybe it's time to conclude that what Marx wrote was quite valuable after all.

[Anonymous No.4831197]

>>4831162
kek

[Anonymous No.4831201]

>>4830488
why is it that they dont realize marx's communism = cottage industry (see his view on alienation)

[Anonymous No.4831204]

liberals operate under the impression that if you take potshots @ both the marxist left and the liberal-conservative right you'll come off as a ideology-free pragmatic scientist or whatever

maybe Piketty will help crush that illusion, because his discoveries will probably lead to fuck all

[Anonymous No.4831960]

>>4830778
it'll be really shit if when we're 80 things start changing because newer generations will demand less working hours/days and so on

i'll feel like one of those dudes who missed 60s sexual freedom and drug culture by 10 years

[Anonymous No.4833562]

He ignores the simple answer, whoever owns the printing press ends up with all the stuff.

[Anonymous No.4833947]

>>4830488
>Marx thought that capitalism would have an “apocalyptic” end
Stopped reading there. If you think that Marx didn't think that Capitalism would have a sort of apocalyptic end, then you clearly need to read the Manifesto again. What a lot of modern die hard Marxists need to realize is that The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are outdated. Marx is part of that philosophical period in the mid and lat 19th century, where the western world was still relatively young and where young, girlish men like Marx, Engels and Proudhon had nothing better to do but ramble incoherently about their wishful ideologies.
While this is a tad unrelated, I'm going to assume that you think that Communism is still a valid philosophical view point.

[Anonymous No.4833954]

>>4831960
>it'll be really shit if when we're 80 things start changing because newer generations will demand less working hours/days and so on
>i'll feel like one of those dudes who missed 60s sexual freedom and drug culture by 10 years
Join the Union. Fight for the 28 hour week.

[Anonymous No.4833956]

>my face when Liberals leaking into Marxist society with their identity-politics and anti-White racism

It's pretty hilarious to be honest.

[Anonymous No.4833959]

>>4833956
u cute

[Anonymous No.4833964]

>>4833959
>u cute

[Anonymous No.4833975]

>>4833947
Pretty sure climate change and the entire system collapsing into itself is a apocalyptic end.

Because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen.
Also ignores that Marx also believed that Capitalists would come up with new ways to reform Capitalism to keep it going, but those new ways would result in more antagonism that leads to bigger crisis. Do you honestly believe that Marx didn't foresee cheap credit?

Pic related and evidence that Marx has been pretty on the fucking ball.

[Anonymous No.4834014]

>>4833956

We fucking eat liberals. We gobble them up, bones and all, then shit them out onto the faces of their fellows.

>>4833975

>Do you honestly believe that Marx didn't foresee cheap credit?

Bernstein made the same damn objections as this reformist fuckwit is making, and Luxembourg's response was as accurate then as it is now.

[Anonymous No.4834044]

>>4833975
>b-b-b-but that's not what they told me in HS and on the tv :(

[Anonymous No.4834052]

>“the rate of return on capital is a central concept in many economic theories. In particular, Marxist analysis emphasises the falling rate of profit – a historical prediction that has turned out to be quite wrong, although it does contain an interesting intuition.”

This is entirely true: the "law" of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall has been empirically disproven, and Marx's formula for this "law" has been put through the ringer. Basically, Marx misinterpreted his own algebra--go figure.

The basic insight underneath the idea is, however--and as Pickety does grant--sound, interesting, and worthy of consideration.

[Anonymous No.4834053]

>>4831204
>berals operate under the impression that if you take potshots @ both the marxist left and the liberal-conservative right you'll come off as a ideology-free pragmatic scientist or whatever

How many articles have you read that begin with "Marx was wrong about many things but.."

Really, Marx was wrong on many things? How about you list them out then?

While I think you can argue Marx was actually wrong on some things, the statement that "Marx was wrong on many things" just hand waves away the entire collective works of Marx but then goes on to claim, he was on the right path.

Sorry, If you are going to claim such nonsense, go please go through Das Kapital page by page and show me what is wrong.

Since not even Rothbard did this, I have a sneaking suspicion.. Marx wasn't actually wrong on many things, he may have made incorrect observations on some things since he is a human, but in general, his work still holds up well today.

[Anonymous No.4834092]

>>4830653
Because right winged capitalists and left wing multiculturalist work hand in hand to fuck up the native work force by importing third worlders, capitalists to drive down the price of labor, multiculturalists to increase "diversity".

[Anonymous No.4834117]

>All these people misunderstanding Marxism

Alright, this can be made very simple.

Imagine only one business existed in the world. How would that business sell all of its products to its employees and turn a profit at the same time? It pays its employees, its employees have to buy its goods. How does it profit.

Marxism, in a nutshell, says that in order to keep going the market MUST expand. When the market has no more room to expand, you get the crisis of overproduction. In other words, you make more than you can possibly sell.

Very simple idea. Pretty damning. And adding more businesses does not solve the problem.

[Anonymous No.4834137]

>>4834052

Marx's observation that the rate of profit has a tendency to to decline is entirely correct. He does not assume that there are no mitigating circumstances; in fact, he predicts these as well. What he *does* assert is that the *tendency* is for the rate of profit to decline and that mitigating circumstances help to illustrate this.

There is a tendency for the amount of labor required in any given enterprise to decrease - that is saying nothing more than that the productivity of labor has the tendency to increase.

Labor productivity generally only increases in the presence of an increase in the organic composition of capital - that is saying nothing more than that the proportion of capital invested in machines, buildings, fuel, raw materials, etc. has the tendency to rise relative to the portion invested in labor.

What circumstances might mitigate this tendency of the rate of profit to fall with a decrease in the proportion of capital invested in labor? (1) The expansion of operations so that the amount of capital invested in labor increases absolutely despite its decrease relatively. We see this with the appearance of the Russian and Chinese markets almost out of nothing in the 20th century. (2) The discovery of entirely new fields for capital investment, perhaps with a lower proportion of constant capital. We see this with the explosion of telecommunications and various technology industries that have since spread worldwide.

Those are only a few examples, but they illustrate the point well enough.

[Anonymous No.4834144]

>>4834117

No.

No, you fucking idiot.

Expansion-as-necessity is a feature of Capitalism, according to Marx, but it has very little to do with how Marx conceives of the possibility of profit within an ideal, closed system, such as a perfectly clearing market. Enter the Labor Theory of Value, and all its goofiness.

[Anonymous No.4834148]

>>4834137

I would encourage you to go look over Marx's actual formula, remind yourself how fractions (or "rates") work, and see for yourself where Marx went wrong.

[Anonymous No.4834158]

>>4834092
>left wing
Try again.

[Anonymous No.4834174]

>>4834144
>and all its goofiness

[Anonymous No.4834176]

>>4834144

What are you talking about? That is exactly Marx's conception of the crash of capitalism.

Capital accumulation leaves fewer and fewer independently operating (small) capitals. The decrease in the number of independent capitalists (particularly of the smaller variety) is part of the tendency of the profit rat to decline. With ever decreasing competition and an ever decreasing rate of profit, capital cannot valorize - commodities become unsalable at their value, and so reproduction cannot occur. Sales stop, production stops, wages stop, and finally consumption stops. The very existence of a great surplus of commodities goes hand-in-hand with the inability of the producers (workers) to purchase the commodities.

How about before you call someone an idiot you bother to know what you're talking about?

[Anonymous No.4834186]

>>4834148

I clearly am already familiar with his work and did not notice any issue with his formula. How about you present the argument yourself so that I can see it?

[Anonymous No.4834203]

>>4834176

It's one conception of one bottleneck that Marx foresaw, but based on a flawed notion (the tendency of the profit rate to fall). Keynes had a similar insight, without the bad math.

You asked how a company could still turn a profit if it was the only company in existence. Marx sets up at the very beginning of Volume 1 a scenario very much like that one to demonstrate how such a thing is in fact possible.

Maybe read the fucking dude before you make an ass out of yourself.

[Anonymous No.4834206]

>>4834186

That would take time and mental energy, though.

Do you even know the formula? Quick, what is is?! Hard-mode: no google!

[Anonymous No.4834224]

>>4834203

Illustrate the 'flaw' in his notion.

Marx illustrates only how expanded reproduction is possible. He does not proclaim the possibility of a single universal or nearly universal capitalist producer profiting off of sales to itself.

How about you take your own advice?

[Anonymous No.4834232]

>>4834206
Not him, but I just want to guess this from memory

M-C-P-C prime -M prime

Did I get it?

[Anonymous No.4834236]

>>4834206

If you are not going to 'take the time' to make your own argument, I will not 'take the time' to attempt to make it for you. I already explained Marx's conception of the tendency of the profit rate to decline and the mitigating circumstances involved.

[Anonymous No.4834248]

>>4834186
>>4834206

Okay, fine

Here's the general formula:

(s/v)/(c/v + 1)

s=surplus value
v=variable capital
c=constant capital

profit rates are positive when the composition of organic capital is relatively low, as in early industrial manufacturing. however, due to pressure on profits due to wage increases, there is an incentive to increase the organic composition of capital until, with the side effect that the rate of surplus value goes down, and when this varies with respect to the organic composition, the profit rate goes down.

but take a look at that formula again. as the composition of organic capital increases (when there's more c relative to v), it would look like Marx was correct--as the denominator increases the overall rate shrinks, yeah? but v has to fall in both the numerator and the denominator, meaning the numerator (at best) can permanently be greater than the denominator, meaning the rate NEVER goes down. it can, actuallly, INCREASE, given Marx's algebra, even if we assume the kind of tendencies that Marx does w/r/t the organic composition of capital.

>>4834224
>>4834236

See above and eat a dick.

>>4834232

Nah, mang.

[Anonymous No.4834297]

>>4834248

I do not see how the decrease of 'v' in both the numerator and in the denominator implies that the increase in 'c' will not lead to a decrease in the profit rate. The decrease in 'v' merely leads to a higher relative proportion of 's' in the numerator, but this does not change the fact the increase of 'c' represents a real decline in the fraction. At best, methods of increasing 's' (which are noted by Marx) relative to 'v' factor in as mitigating circumstances to the overall decline, but do not stop it.

[Anonymous No.4834320]

>>4834297

v is the same in the numerator and the denominator. when it goes down in the denominator, it goes down in the numerator. further, c is in a fixed relation to v (it is a composition, not a real rate; it can only get so high), while s can vary pretty much all over the place relative to v.

Marx's formula, which is a formalization of his whole fucking theory, does not demonstrate any tendency of the profit rate to fall. at best, it demonstrates the capacity of the profit rate to fluctuate. cool fuckin story.

[Anonymous No.4834343]

Piketty believes the rate of return on capital is an average return on a bond (interest rate), land (rent), housing (‘rent for housing services’) and profit from business. In Marx’s case it is the surplus value created by the workers in the capitalist sector of production divided by the total amount of accumulated capital (plant, equipment, technology etc and labour employed). The key difference is that Piketty reckons capital includes your home, while Marx reckons that is not productive capital or means of production but ‘wealth’ accumulated from profits but used by capitalists in consumption and by workers from their wages in paying interest on mortgages. This is not capital for Marx. So Piketty’s rate of return on capital is different from Marx’s rate of profit (or rate of return) on capital. Finally, Piketty reckons the rate of return on capital is pretty much unchanged over the long term while Marx reckons there a tendency for the rate of profit on productive capital to fall over the long term.

[Anonymous No.4834348]

>>4834320
Uh, mate, at google c is infinite and v is finite. In most electronically reproducible information labour c is effectively infinite.

The composition of capital is historically determined by the social and technical relations of production. Fucksake. Its in volume 1

[Anonymous No.4834359]

>>4834248
>>4834297
>>4834320
>>4834176
>>4834137

This is why I visit /lit/ instead of /pol/

ACTUAL REAL DEBATE!

keep going, I'm quite interested.

[Anonymous No.4834363]

>>4834248
>I stopped my math education at algebra

HUE

[Anonymous No.4834374]

>>4834348

>The composition of capital is historically determined by the social and technical relations of production

This explains exactly nothing. Great job.

>c is infinite, v is infinite, labour is infinite

one: "labour" is "variable capital. so if labour is "effectively infinite" than so is v.

two: we live on a finite planet, with finite resources. you cannot "infinitely" convert manufactory hands into mechanical looms. that's fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.4834379]

>>4834363

No, Marx did. It's not my fault I'm stuck using his bullshit.

You want some calculus infused Marxism? Go read Bowles and Gintis from the 70s.

[Anonymous No.4834385]

>>4834320

'c' is in no fixed relation to 'v'. That's the whole fucking point.

s / (c+v) is the rate of profit. With an increase of 'c', there is a decrease in the fraction. This decrease can only be offset by an increase in 's' which is the result of an increase in either relative or absolute surplus value. So, either the existing working day involves a greater portion of surplus-labor (cheaper labor) or the working day is extended to increase the proportion of 's' to 'v' (e.g. an increase from 8 hour working days to 12 hour working days).

The average rate of profit is merely an average of the collective rates of profit of different capital enterprises. It is obvious the productivity in all fields had the tendency to rise with the advance of technology, as it is equally obvious that this tendency could be offset by new fields of investment with a lower organic composition, among other examples.

[Anonymous No.4834392]

>>4834374
>>4834374
>>The composition of capital is historically determined by the social and technical relations of production

You'd just argued that the composition of capital was historical fixed idiot, here:

>>4834320
>c is in a fixed relation to v (it is a composition, not a real rate; it can only get so high)

This is demonstrably false. Your reading of Marx has been demonstrated to be false, and we merely need to point to the change in the technical composition of production with the introduction of a new machine to demonstrate such.

>c is infinite, v is infinite, labour is infinite
Way to misquote me fuckwad, what I said was:
>>4834348
>at google c is infinite and v is finite

You are illiterate.

Finally:
>you cannot "infinitely" convert manufactory hands into mechanical looms.
Way to confuse use and exchange value. Back to Chapter 1.

[Anonymous No.4834394]

I am the one who apparently started this shitstorm, but quite frankly I think the attempts to inject mathematics are bunk. It works in a very conceptual manner, attempting to apply an equation as anything other than an approximation is hubris, and dishonest to boot.

I, frankly, think that economics has tried to shoehorn itself into respectability by dressing its observations up in mathematics. The models prove, time and time, to break on formulation.

No, I think it is suffice to say that you cannot turn a profit by selling your goods to the workers you employ indefinitely.

P.S. Economics is political science and social science. And it is just as soft. I'm quite exhausted of seeing people even imply otherwise.

[Anonymous No.4834401]

Can someone explain the TPRF and the OCC in laymans terms?

Reading about them on Wikipeda, but getting shit tonnes of economics jargon that I have no fucking clue what they are talking about.

[Anonymous No.4834421]

>>4834385

s / (c+v) is the rate of profit for a single capitalist producer.

(s/v)/(c/v+1) is the general formula for the whole system. it is here where marx runs into big problems, as I've already demonstrated.

>>4834392

i should have been more careful in my phrasing. when i say c is in a "fixed relation" to v, i mean it, being a composition, can only vary so far. c+v is the total composition of capital, and c/v expresses the relative proportions of each. comprende?

as to >c is infinite, v is infinite, labour is infinite
that was a typo on my part, but the point i made still stands. if labor is effectively infinite than v is effectively infinite, meaning the composition of capital, if c is also effectively infinite, is infinity divided by infinity, which is just 1. what the fuck would that even mean.

>confusing use and exchange value
we aren't even talking about that, that is completely irrelevant here.

[Anonymous No.4834422]

>>4834401
>Can someone explain the TPRF and the OCC in laymans terms?

The OCC is the Organic Composition of Capital. It is how much constant capital (c), ie: raw materials and depreciation of machinery, is embodied in a product as opposed to variable capital (v) or actually living labour. The OCC is c/v.

As the OCC increases, the amount of actually living labour embodied, and thus the potential for the production of surplus value, declines. As profit is related to the rate of surplus value, the profit declines. This is the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Decline.

Expansion of the market (primitive accumulation) may set this tendency back. Mandel has a good account in the introduction to volume 2 (if I recall).

[Anonymous No.4834428]

>>4834421
>as to >c is infinite, v is infinite, labour is infinite
>that was a typo on my part, but the point i made still stands. if labor is effectively infinite than v is effectively infinite, meaning the composition of capital, if c is also effectively infinite, is infinity divided by infinity, which is just 1. what the fuck would that even mean.

You just committed the SAME ERROR. I never gave a case of infinite v. I gave a case of infinite c finite v. Fucksake are you a cretin.

>two: we live on a finite planet, with finite resources. you cannot "infinitely" convert manufactory hands into mechanical looms. that's fucking retarded.

Value and mechanical looms do not occupy a fixed fucking relation. Stop mistaking a use value (looms) for an exchange value (value composition of a loom).

Seriously mate, learn to fucking read.

[Anonymous No.4834431]

>>4834421
>infinity divided by infinity
>just 1

Dude... You should have stopped before you so proudly displayed your mathematical illiteracy.

[Anonymous No.4834440]

>>4834428

Dude.

This is you at >>4834348 :
>Uh, mate, at google c is infinite and v is finite. In most electronically reproducible information labour c is effectively infinite.
>labour is effectively infinite

this is what I am going off of

"labour" and "variable capital" are the same fucking thing.

[Anonymous No.4834446]

>>4834431

a/a = 1

how old are you?

[Anonymous No.4834451]

>>4834428

also, the "value" of "constant capital" is the "value" of all the non-labour components of production, which includes fucking LOOMS if you're manufacturing textiles.

[Anonymous No.4834461]

>>4834431
>>4834446

or indeterminate. either way it is incomprehensible for an economics formula to have infinity divided by itself

[Anonymous No.4834473]

>>4834421

You demonstrated nothing other than your inability to cope with the difference between the theoretical and the concrete. You assert a fixed relation between variable and constant that does not exist.

What is true for the formula of a single capitalist is true for all capitalists in general expressed as an average. With an increase in 'c', the whole fraction is reduced. This is indisputable.

[Anonymous No.4834474]

>>4834440
>"labour" and "variable capital" are the same fucking thing.
Which I never fucking said:
>In most electronically reproducible information labour c is effectively infinite.
c = infinite
v = finite

>Uh, mate, at google c is infinite and v is finite.
c = infinite
v = finite

I have NEVER GIVEN AN EXAMPLE OF v BEING INFINITE. STOP FUCKING STRAW MANNING YOU USELESS DOG CUNT.

In the composition of any capital where c is highly developed, v fades towards delta or epsilon. This is true in open fucking mining at the moment, the proportion of living labour is minuscule, and the industry is only profitable by exploiting OCC differences with service sectors.

The conclusion to the above is obvious: the price of google products ought (in Marx's fair market example) to be zero. The price workers are willing to pay for informational goods is zero. Information is effectively leaving the value relation, even as the cost of producing it in constant capital increases.

[Anonymous No.4834482]

>>4834461
Have you ever even taken a calculus course? I'm just shocked by your bold-faced ignorance here.

Jesus Christ. I'm not trying to be an asshole, you're just wrong.

[Anonymous No.4834484]

>>4830488

Why do communists always try to debunk reality with their insane misunderstandings of how it works?

Go fuck yourself with your mass-murderer shirts.

[Anonymous No.4834504]

>>4834474

You seem mad.

>>4834473

when all else fails, accuse the other of failing to grasp abstract concepts. it worked for Hegel. it worked for Marx. it can work for you.

I already explained what is meant be "fixed" relation of variable to constant capital. once again: c+v is the total composition of capital; c/v expresses their proportion. they are tied to one another; they must vary accordingly.

If you would like a more rigorous treatment of this whole topic, I suggest looking up Nobuo Okishio.

>>4834482

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/53337.html

[Anonymous No.4834507]

>>4834484
Gabitalism ib freetum. :)))

[Anonymous No.4834524]

>>4834504
You've been #rekt mate. Walk it off like a man. Your argument by repetition makes you look like the fool you are rather than the man you could be.

[Anonymous No.4834530]

>>4834504
Except this isn't infinity/infinity, is it? It's a question of variables which may or may not trend towards infinity. That's a different problem.

[Anonymous No.4834542]

I'm totally lost on who is arguing who here and who is arguing what.

Maybe you guys should take this argument to /sci/ and see what they say.

[Anonymous No.4834557]

>>4834524

Okay, Dad.

No one's been "rekt." Do you even understand what's been under discussion?

There's only so many ways you can formulate the truth before you start having to simply repeat yourself until the other party SEES what it is you're saying.

>>4834530

>infinity divided by infinity is indeterminate
>you are correct!

I misunderstood the point the other anon was trying to make, and so got off on a silly tangent about how infinity doesn't fit into Marx's formula. Bad on me.

[Anonymous No.4834559]

>>4834504

c / v only expresses the rate of wages to constant capital. It does not imply any necessary proportion. Constant capital has the tendency to increase just as variable capital has thus far had the tendency to increase also, although not in the same proportion. It is this disproportional development that expresses the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. In order for the rate of profit *not* to fall with the increase in constant capital, wages would have to *fall* in proportion to surplus, which I already explained comes about through the increase in absolute or relative surplus-labor.

Surplus value is limited to the entire value product of the working day minus the portion devoted to wages (the value of the variable). This is finite. There is no such necessary limitation on the increase in constant capital.

[Anonymous No.4834595]

>>4834557
>There's only so many ways you can formulate the truth before you start having to simply repeat yourself until the other party SEES what it is you're saying.
You've been repeatedly demonstrated to misread, strawman, and posit false interpretations.

Walk it off sweetheart.

[Anonymous No.4834614]

>>4834557
It's not indeterminate, necessarily.

In practical application, when both variables in a/b trend towards infinity you can get 0, 1, and Infinity (undefined, and this infinity can, and usually is, of a different sort than the two infinities you plugged in for a and b).

But I would like to reiterate a more important point:

>mathematical models
>economics

[Anonymous No.4834634]

>>4834559

>
Surplus value is limited to the entire value product of the working day minus the portion devoted to wages (the value of the variable). This is finite. There is no such necessary limitation on the increase in constant capital.

Right, so as variable capital falls, ceteris paribum, the surplus actually increases, meaning the rate of surplus value (s/v) increases. Nothing guarantees that c/v will increase faster than s/v.

[Anonymous No.4834643]

>>4834595

>sweetheart

nigga, who are you?

[Anonymous No.4834669]

>>4834634

Variable capital falls in proportion to constant capital. It does not *necessarily* fall in relation to surplus. Constant does not just increase relative to variable. It increases relative to surplus + variable.

Constant and variable are the existing capital. Surplus is the valorization of the existing capital value. It is obvious that the value of constant can increase relative to the value of variable without affecting the relation of surplus to variable.

You are correct as far as concerns this; surplus *can* rise in relation to variable and offset the increase of OCC. The *tendency*, however, is a general *fall* in the rate of profit.

[Anonymous No.4834694]

>>4834669

And this "tendency" has empirically been proven false.

>Variable capital falls in proportion to constant capital. It does not *necessarily* fall in relation to surplus.

according to the rules of algebra it does.

here's the formula yet again:

(s/v)/(c/v+1)

v is not a different variable in the numerator than it is in the denominator. it denotes the same value. if it is going down relative to c in the denominator, it is going down relative to s in the numerator (which also means that s can be increasing at the same time).

[Anonymous No.4834702]

>>4834669
>>4834694

to be clear: this is not a confusion on my part, or a failure to grasp the "dialectic of valorization," or whatever. it is a failure on Marx's part to check his fucking math. he does not get to change the rules of algebra when it suits him, no matter how much Hegel he ingested as a young man.

[Anonymous No.4834715]

>>4834694

You have not illustrated this tendency to be false. It is a fact that machines, buildings, raw materials, etc. increase with the progress of development. Demonstrate that labor increases in the same or greater value proportion.

'c' is increasing relative to 'v' in the denominator. This does not imply a change in 'v'. It implies a change in 'c'.

Further, and change in 'v' is limited within certain concrete parameters; it cannot vary outside of these. 'c', however, has no such limitation.

[Anonymous No.4834722]

>>4834694
>confusing tendencies and laws
…

[Anonymous No.4834724]

>>4834694
>>4834715
>ECONOMICS
>MATHEMATICAL MODELS

[Anonymous No.4834725]

>>4834702

Your grasp of the equation in the abstract is sound. What you are bungling is which item is experiencing change. 'c' increases. 'v' does not necessarily change in relation to 's' despite its change in relation to 'c', because the increase of OCC is an increase of 'c' and not of 'v'.

[Anonymous No.4834736]

>>4834722

Marx again, not me.

>>4834715

Marx believed that s would decrease as workers were laid off either to be replaced by machines or because capital was being moved to a different sector of the economy. It can therefore be assumed that v is falling relative to c, though this is not necessary.

Marx also believed that as technology and production advanced to a point where valorizing equipment could be reproduced efficiently and cheaply, the value of c would fall, even as it "increases" relative to v.

>>4834724

Dude, I agree with you up to a point, but we're talking about an (archaic) algebraic formula used in Marx's economics theory. What do you expect?

[Anonymous No.4834748]

>>4834736
>Marx believed that s would decrease as workers were laid off either to be replaced by machines or because capital was being moved to a different sector of the economy. It can therefore be assumed that v is falling relative to c, though this is not necessary.
>Marx also believed that as technology and production advanced to a point where valorizing equipment could be reproduced efficiently and cheaply, the value of c would fall, even as it "increases" relative to v.

Yes. This doesn't really . . . well, contradict anything I said.

[Anonymous No.4834753]

>>4834736
>>4834715

The then becomes: how do we "valorize" all this potential profit if all the people we used to pay wages to are unemployed and can't buy our products?

That's one of the interesting insights that emerges from the idea of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, even if they idea itself is unsound. And there have been proofs done by other economists not working within the Marxian tradition demonstrating the impossibility of a full employment rate, so he's vindicated to some degree.

[Anonymous No.4834758]

>>4834748

It shows that, by Marx's own reckoning, v (and c) will be falling, while s will be increasing, meaning the profit rate will be going up.

[Anonymous No.4834768]

>>4834758
>>4834748

Sorry, a typo on my part

>Marx believed that s would decrease as workers etc.

should read "Marx believed that v would decrease

[Anonymous No.4834770]

>>4834753

We're back this this again. You simply repeat that the tendency of the profit rate to fall is unsound while doing nothing to illustrate this.

[Anonymous No.4834780]

>>4834758

's' does not increase as 'c' and 'v' fall in value. 's' exists in a certain necessary proportion to 'v'. Once 'v' falls to a certain minimum, 's' can no longer increase. 'c', however, can. So 'c' may always increase relative to 'v' and 's'.

Ergo, the value proportions increasingly tend toward increasing 'c' relative to 'v' and 's' with the progress of development.

[Anonymous No.4834782]

>>4834748
>>4834758
>>4834770

Attempting to be clearer:

If surplus value is total value output minus wages (variable), and if the efficiency and productive capacity of machinery (or any productive element) increases while it's cost decreases, allowing for the possibility of decreasing variable, then the rate of surplus value is increasing while both constant and variable capital are falling.

[Anonymous No.4834783]

>>4834736
The point is to stop treating this like real maths.

The model is no more than shorthand language. It's not even algebra.

[Anonymous No.4834797]

>>4834782

The maximum extent of surplus value extraction is the entire working day with the workers subsisting on sunshine and woo. Beyond that, 's' can no longer increase. If all labor were surplus labor, this still would be true.

Hence, 's' can only increase to the extent that 'v' hits its minimum. 'c' is not so limited.

[Anonymous No.4834814]

>>4834797

except c also has a tendency to fall over time, and v, as you say, has a minimum value it can't go under. i would think that, by marx's formula, as technology advances to a point where constant capital becomes vanishingly cheap, a capitalist could simply opt to hire more workers whenever he noticed his profits starting to slip due to his not employing enough of them to exploit so as to turn a profit.

This is all assuming Marx's labor theory of value is a sound way to describe the derivation of profit from production, which it simply isn't. It has it's uses, but they are more toward describing relationships of political power within the workplace and around it.

[Anonymous No.4834854]

>>4830618

This was truly cringe-worthy.

[Anonymous No.4834861]

>>4830715

>big words
>historical materialism
>socio-cultural

Seriously?

[Anonymous No.4834864]

>>4834814

'v' is the total number of workers multiplied by the total number of working hours devoted to their subsistence.

's' is the the total number of workers multiplied by the total number of working hours devoted to valorization.

Every time productivity increases, 'v' decreases because fewer workers are required. 's' decreases in a certain proportion because those unemployed workers produce no surplus-value.

The absolute amount of surplus-value produced falls in a certain proportion as 'v' falls, and 'c' rises in relative value as these both fall. 'c' further, and more importantly, increases with productivity due to the increased expense of the elements of 'c' in reproduction.

Because of this, 'v' (and 's' by extension) fall faster than 'c' in all but exceptional circumstances which have already been discussed.

Long story short, 'v' falls, 's' falls, 'c' rises in proportion - this is the tendency.

[Anonymous No.4834879]

>>4834864

I've made my points, and you've made yours. I think you're wrong, and you think I'm wrong. Neither has succeeded in convincing the other. The only real difference is that you are operating under the illusion that Marxian economics with respects to its theory of value and profit has any relevance to contemporary economic theory. Marx had some interesting insights; but as a system, or a "science," Marxian economics fails completely. I know you've heard this a million times. I know you don't believe it. That doesn't change the irrelevance of this dead apparatus you've invested so much time and energy trying to understand and defend.

[Anonymous No.4834885]

>>4834814
>i would think that, by marx's formula, as technology advances to a point where constant capital becomes vanishingly cheap, a capitalist could simply opt to hire more workers whenever he noticed his profits starting to slip due to his not employing enough of them to exploit so as to turn a profit.

'c' does not become vanishingly cheap. The materials necessary to maintain and increase 'c' are the only thing that consistently increase. Individual units decrease, but the totality constantly grows. As materials become more scarce, this will actually have the tendency to create artificially high prices which must be paid for out of the surplus-value of other capital enterprises.

New workers do not equal more profits for the capitalist if he pays them himself. He receives the 'average' rate of profit - his own is quite low, if he has a high OCC. Only workers employed by capitalists with a lower OCC mean higher profits for those with higher OCC, which is why the steady destruction of smaller capitalists means a decrease in the rate of profit for all, even setting aside the general increase in OCC.

[Anonymous No.4834888]

>>4834504

>Nobuo Okishio

Hasn't Andrew Kliman recently #rekt his work?

[Anonymous No.4834894]

>>4834879

The questionable assertion that Marxian economics has no relevance in the field of bourgeois economic science is no black-mark on its record to me.

In the course of this conversation, your misinterpretation of the general formula has been debunked. You misunderstood the variable factor as being 'v' instead of 'c', misunderstood the concrete limitations on the increase in 's' relative to 'c', and from this drew absurd conclusions.

[Anonymous No.4834924]

>>4834894

both v and c are variables

both v and c have a "tendency" to decrease over time. up to a point, s increases as v decreases, and v has a lower limit while, meaning the value of the numerator of the general formula will be >1 while the denominator trends toward 2 (1+1). As it is trending towards two, the profit rate is increasing.

marx was simply wrong about how s varies relative to either v or c

the term bourgeois has lost all meaning beyond its use as a shibboleth of the old guard

you are deluding yourself

[Anonymous No.4834939]

>>4834924

Both 'v' and 'c' are variables, however, and increase in 'c' represents the increase in the OCC. Its variability is unlimited - that is, 'c' can always increase. 'v' can only vary within certain limitations, and 's' can only vary within limitations set by 'v'.

So, no, the formula is perfectly sound unless you intentionally detach yourself from reality and pretend that the increase in 's' is infinite. If wages hit zero, 's' hits zero unless the workers work for free. If they work for free, they cannot buy commodities, and the entire system crashes.

I know it's hard to admit to being wrong, but you literally have no argument.

[Anonymous No.4834946]

>>4834894
>The questionable assertion that Marxian economics has no relevance in the field of mass unemployment, finance bubbles or deflation is no black-mark on its record to me.
t. marxist

[Anonymous No.4834954]

>>4834946

Lovely misquote, but the point of the 'bourgeois' in the bit about bourgeois economic science was to illustrate its inability to acknowledge scientific advancements that demonstrate the strictly historical nature of capitalist production.

Established bourgeois political economy is invested in not seeing the nose on its face.

[Anonymous No.4834960]

>/lit/ discussing mathematics

blackmichaeljacksoneatingpopcorn.gif

[Anonymous No.4834983]

>>4834960
Its quite enjoyable isn't it.

God I wish /pol/ was like this.

[Anonymous No.4835020]

>>4834983

Never going to happen.

I'm turning their anti-com thread into a festival of asspain as we speak. The retards can't help themselves.

[Anonymous No.4835038]

>>4834939
took you long to convince the man, well done

[Anonymous No.4835422]

>>4830531
>the dude uses questionable methodologies throughout the book. ar

No he doesn't

[Anonymous No.4835438]

>>4835422
Cool assertions bro. Maybe either of you would like to refer to heterodox economics journals or journals of political economy for scholarly book reviews?

Nah too fucking hard eh? To settle the matter? Why not bitch at each other for eight hours instead of doing some basic research.

[Anonymous No.4837397]

http://mltoday.com/professor-piketty-fights-orthodoxy-and-attacks-inequality

This is a really good review of the book, even though it's from a Leninist. Probably the best I've seen. Micheal Roberts has submitted his review to some economic journal, that's what I'm really looking towards.

[Anonymous No.4837413]

On Micheal Roberts review, hes done done some blog posts on Picketty which I think will show up theme wise in his review

>In particular, there is a paper by Bonnet, Bono, Chapelle and Wasmer wp-25-bonnet-et-al-liepp, which concentrates on Piketty’s data. The paper points out that valuing housing by movements in property prices rather than in rental equivalents exaggerates the rise in capital share of national income significantly. I think valuing ‘housing services’ with some synthetic concoction does not work at all.

>Even more decisive is an article by French Marxist economist Michel Husson who says that in Piketty’s first ‘fundamental law of capitalism’ the causality is the wrong way round
>Husson points out that Piketty says that the share going to profit as opposed to wages depends on the ratio of total capital to income times the net rate of return. But Marx says that what matters is how you get the rate of profit. That changes Piketty’s equation to the net rate of return (r), or the rate of profit, is equal to share going to profits over wages (the rate of exploitation) divided by total capital. Piketty’s version shows he is only interested in the share going to profit and assumes a rate of return to do it. He has no theoretical explanation of how this r is reached. Piketty is interested in distribution of income or value in a capitalist economy not in its production. So he ignores Marx’s law of value.

>Husson also points out that Piketty’s merging of the definition of capital, as Marx sees it, into wealth, by including housing and personal financial assets, distorts the real laws of motion on capitalism. And his use of the neoclassical aggregate production function model to project the likely development of inequality of wealth assumes an equilibrium growth path for capitalism without crises, booms of slumps, or events like the Great Recession. In the end, Piketty dispenses with neoclassical capital theory and just relies on historical data for his results.

[Anonymous No.4837415]

>>4830513

ya you the 4chan poster is right, Ph.D Piketty is the wrong one. kek. time for bed anon

[Anonymous No.4837421]

>>4830531

Kook.

[Anonymous No.4837424]

>>4830543

Grade 9 reading level confirmed

[Anonymous No.4837425]

>>4830653

Because you are not in the 1%

[Anonymous No.4837432]

>>4830710

#rekt

[Anonymous No.4837494]

>Liberals
>Realistic expectations and intellegence

Did you forget that they live off of processed noodles, utopian idealism and impractical ideas of justice for all.

How do you enforce that justice without being oppressive? You can't. It's impossible. You will never convince people to give away their wealth due to strong amounts of individualism in society. Liberalism has two points of view. Justice and Freedom. With freedom I cause injustice, with Justice I end freedom.

This is not all liberalism, but rather the modern ideas that are structured around social justice. Most people who dislike social justice do so because they recognize that it is a system in which those with advantage are asked to stand like a ladder for others to climb, and when others reach the top, they push the ladder down because now those with advantage feel they must protect what they've earned

[Anonymous No.4837544]

>>4837494
>let me just pick one word out of the OP and spew my dumb rant that has nothing to do with anything let alone the one word I chose

[Anonymous No.4837671]

>>4837544
You do understand that I am dissecting the philosophy behind the people whom wrote such a book.

The point is to discredit the book through the exposing of flawed viewpoints on a flawed idea.

[Anonymous No.4837764]

>>4834861
Libertarians aren't well versed in basic political vocabulary or knowledge, that's why they're libertarians.

[Anonymous No.4840218]

>>4830533
He's French and received his PhD at the London School of Economics

[Anonymous No.4840340]

You are better of reading something like Capital As Power: A Study of Order and Creorder (http://www.mediafire.com/view/xx9m0aqz4lay0nl/Capital_As_Power_full_indexed.pdf or http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/259/02/20090522_nb_casp_full_indexed.pdf)) to get a understanding of the world. Though it draws a lot from Marx a substantial part of the book criticizing his theories/formulas and those of other marxists (if you don't know the many different Marxist theories you will after this book) as well as tearing apart the neoclassical theories which share some things with marxist ones.

[Anonymous No.4840415]

>>4837671
you're clearly misguided if you think that center-"left" americans are "liberals", and your idea of what a "liberal" is comes straight from 4chan reaction images, comics from /pol/ and advice dogs variations.

[Anonymous No.4842028]

>>4837415
People misunderstanding Marx isn't anything new.
Go look at Rothbard's laughable analysis of Marx's theories that are proven incorrect by reading the first Chapter of Kapital.

[Anonymous No.4842097]

>>4837494
what are you even talking about
this is a discussion about capital not the democratic party
not only that but you're mad wrong

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.4842259]

piketty's treatment of marx is basically following the MIT line in the cambridge capital controversy