Marxian economist are becoming more and more outdated as more and more markets that don't operate under his axioms...

Marxian economist are becoming more and more outdated as more and more markets that don't operate under his axioms become more and more relevant.
Classic economics are completely uncapable of analyzing software-based markets, and traditional means of production-based works that transform raw materials into goods are becoming more and more automated, destroying the whole concept of proletariat.

Well? What now Zig Forums?

Attached: Poster131.jpg (310x450, 190.21K)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxist.com/computer-industry-capitalism-free-software240907.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Imagine being this much of a brainlet

Random gibberish, clearly no proficiency in English.

This is something i have always wondered. How did the invention of computers affect marxist theory?

Not an argument:)

How is automation destroying a concept of proletariat if automation was cause of creation of proletariat in the first place?

tfw Marx never wrote on automation and automation never existed at all during his time alive. It's over Fellas Marxist economics is defeated. If only Marx pbuh would of been aware of a growing trend of automation and industrialization which were creating the proletariat. Dang guess I'm a ancap now

Robos aren't proles

Correct, but that is not an argument but moving goalpost

Wat

You didn't specify why the proletariat would stop existing, you just stated that robots are not proletariat.

I asked you how is automatization destroying concept of proletariat. You told me that robots are not people.

Isn’t this exactly what Cockshott is all about? Adapting Marxian economics to the computer age?

What does this mean to you though?

no. he just conceived an actually workable system of economic planning.

all "software-based market" means is that investors are getting more replaced and efficient. if anything computing will destroy the whole concept of the capitalist.
be on the lookout for pic related when it gets dropped.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1536x2336, 1.14M)

Evidently you have read zero Marx. He wrote an awful lot about automation you fuck

where?

I need to read that book really bad. We are already living in a planned economy, people just haven't woken up and realized it yet.

checked
Start with wage, labor and capital. It's just essay so reading it won't take you more than hour

OP here. Allow me to elaborate on what I mean:
Sadly, the Marxian economists are getting older and older.
Ironically, while there isn't much new blood among Marxian economists, markets right now are in the process of ceasing operation and a crisis is about to unfold just like the prophecy of Marx (peace be upon him) stated.
Brothers! Follow the axioms of Marx (PBUH), and you'll become more and more relevant! Success in your life is certain (especially love life, if you know what I mean).
Analyzed from the viewpoint of classical economics, it becomes clear software markets just don't make sense. Why should I pay money for Photoshop, when GIMP is good enough and free. Besides, even if only Photoshop existed, I'd just look for a free copy. If he were alive today, Adam Smith surely would agree with me.
Transformers could be a great movie franchise, but you have to disrespect copyright and take Michael Bay's movies as raw material to turn into something good, so that we'll see more and more movies with Autobots.

Thats because software isnt a commodity and the whole "software market" is just the result of aggressive monopolies on production. Its not so much a market as it is conglomorates slowly but surely trying to patents and copyright every possible thing to extract money from doing fuck all.
A bit more "automation", which is really no different from a weaving machine in 1850, does not invalidate the concept of proletariat in the slightest.

I agree that we need a new body of theory treating the digital economy, although I'm not sure Marxian economics is outdated yet.
Here are a couple of fields that I think we should explore:
- Appropriation of information networks and rent-seeking off it. (Facebook, YouTube, Amazon, Uber, Google…)
- Appropriation of cultural standards and rent-seeking off it. (Microsoft, Adobe, Google…)
- Asymmetric information handling. (corporations have much more resources to find good deals than consumers have)
- Control over the things people get to see. (shady algorithms used by the network giants, deliberate confusion of markets, personalized advertising)
- Exploitation of peer-to-peer labor. (corporations make use of an open-source model to get free labor; commercial sites rely on their userbase to create content for them)
- Advertisement and the effect on society.
- Social atomization
- …
There's a lot of theory to be written on these topics. Marx had no idea about them.

...

Intellectual property keeps software as a commodity, which probably responds to the laws of land rent.

>Rent, considered as the price paid for the use of land, is naturally the highest which the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances of the land. In adjusting the terms of the lease, the landlord endeavours to leave him no greater share of the produce than what is sufficient to keep up the stock from which he furnishes the seed, pays the labour, and purchases and maintains the cattle and other instruments of husbandry, together with the ordinary profits of farming stock in the neighbourhood. This is evidently the smallest share with which the tenant can content himself without being a loser, and the landlord seldom means to leave him any more.
>The rent of the land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give.
Adam Smith. Wealth of Nations, On the rent of land.

>Landed property is based on the monopoly by certain persons over definite portions of the globe, as exclusive spheres of their private will to the exclusion of all others.[26] With this in mind, the problem is to ascertain the economic value, that is, the realisation of this monopoly on the basis of capitalist production. With the legal power of these persons to use or misuse certain portions of the globe, nothing is decided. The use of this power depends wholly upon economic conditions, which are independent of their will. The legal view itself only means that the landowner can do with the land what every owner of commodities can do with his commodities.
>ne of the major results of the capitalist mode of production is that, on the one hand, it transforms agriculture from a mere empirical and mechanical self-perpetuating process employed by the least developed part of society into the conscious scientific application of agronomy, in so far as this is at all feasible under conditions of private property;[27] that it divorces landed property from the relations of dominion and servitude, on the one hand, and, on the other, totally separates land as an instrument of production from landed property and landowner — for whom the land merely represents a certain money assessment which he collects by virtue of his monopoly from the industrial capitalist, the capitalist farmer; it dissolves the connection between landownership and the land so thoroughly that the landowner may spend his whole life in Constantinople, while his estates lie in Scotland.
Karl Marx. Capital, Book III. Chapter 37.

marxist.com/computer-industry-capitalism-free-software240907.htm

The IT bourg has a monopoly on something other bourgs need to produce their commodities. Because of that the IT bourg "gains acess" to the surplus-value produced by others. This very process probably creates the price of a software.

It's true we need to bring these topics into a comprehensive Marxist analysis, however, Marxism is well equipped for it.

Labour theory of value can't explain why games on Steam cost 60 muttmoney

Attached: BE03521A-3878-41D9-8E1C-BE22E804F0FF.jpeg (270x255, 28K)