How can you call yourself a Marxist if you don’t understand his critique of...

Nathaniel Wood
Nathaniel Wood

tfw you finally start to read Capital
How can you call yourself a Marxist if you don’t understand his critique of capitalism?
<b-b-but I watch Unruhe and Finnbol for my theory!!!1!

Attached: 61C9D826-F360-4A0B-8274-EC431560A05B.jpeg (231.44 KB, 947x729)

Other urls found in this thread:

desuarchive.org/leftyb/thread/3233/

Ryan Gomez
Ryan Gomez

Yep

Attached: 6820a2076b6fa7d0a0b91c75f9aad6f3d31f9007250663bf6a37a4fddd78e84d.jpg (40.78 KB, 946x656)

Jonathan Gray
Jonathan Gray

be comrade OP
spend a few months lurking and shitposting
finally decided to start taking seriously "read a book advice"
spend hours until he finally manage to find downloadable copy of capital
never felt so powerful in his life
barely finishes first page of Capital
the power of dialectics is already strengthening his body and spirit
"I guess this is enough for today, I should go to Zig Forums and laugh at those brainlets haha"

Elijah Williams
Elijah Williams

Imagine calling yourself a Marxist without reading and fully understanding Hegel's "The Science of Logic"

Attached: 1481814363767.gif (2.9 MB, 500x540)

Kevin Phillips
Kevin Phillips

mfw I read section one and discover that exchange-value is merely the form of appearance of value, which is human labor measured in duration
AT LAST I SEE

Attached: C6C0B7CE-F4F5-4F2D-824A-BA5CA090BA6D.jpeg (56.71 KB, 604x600)

Xavier Johnson
Xavier Johnson

when you read the very first letter of the Communist Manifesto

Attached: 1504491897981.png (484.89 KB, 614x1042)

Eli Campbell
Eli Campbell

Capital seems too focus on production, which was fine for the 20th century but feels outdated by now. Capitalism is really, really good at adaptation and now the economy is mostly based on services. Is there any Marxist analysis on service based economy?

Lucas Scott
Lucas Scott

mfw you can’t speak German but you read the Manifesto in its original language so as to avoid bourgeois distortions

Attached: D708F504-12E0-4E71-B15A-702E20D072C2.jpeg (234.83 KB, 1095x730)

Leo Bailey
Leo Bailey

Economy in the first world is based on services because capital is global and the imperial powers just shifted production to where the wages are low. Commodities still need to be created somewhere

Easton Smith
Easton Smith

MADE BY ISLAM GANG

Julian Roberts
Julian Roberts

now the economy is mostly based on services.
Commodity production is at its highest point in human-history, capitalists in the imperial core have just chosen to shift most production to the third-world where they can exploit without labor laws and minimum wages. In the void we porky’s labor aristocracy consumer class

James Lopez
James Lopez

Marx’s definition of productive labor is very broad too, so there’s a lot that goes on in the American economy that might not be classified under manufacturing that actually is productive. For instance, fast food isn’t counted as manufacturing or even as industry but it still is a productive job.

The US manufacturing economy in particular is actually very large being capitalized around $4 trillion. I once did some calculations using BLS statistics trying to find out how many people worked in productive industry in a total but conventionally limited sense. I believe I came up with about 20% or so or the workforce involved in it. I wouldn’t be surprised if it edged up to 25%-30% once you include those service jobs that are misclassified such as fry cooks.

Jacob Jackson
Jacob Jackson

fuck anprims

Jaxon Howard
Jaxon Howard

that which is given by nature and transformed by human labour, isnt that the definition of commodity. In that sense making burgers is definitely commodity production

Kayden Wright
Kayden Wright

that which is given by nature and transformed by human labour into something useful*

Asher Turner
Asher Turner

What do you suggest is fundamentally inapplicable from Marx's theory then to now?

Wyatt Cruz
Wyatt Cruz

Yeah, for sure, but the strange thing is bourgeois economists classify it as a service instead of commodity production. I mean even Smith would have classified burger flipping as productive labor.

A lot of Marxists don’t go any deeper than the surface presentation of bourgeois statistics tho. So if they say only 12% of the workforce works in manufacturing they’ll usually parrot that as proof that Marx’s theories need to be fundamentally updated to meet today’s conditions. They typically won’t even bother to add other productive industrial sectors to the equation like building, mining, agriculture etc. despite the material being readily available. They just think productive work=factory for some reason.

John Roberts
John Roberts

making burgers is imperialism

Julian Cooper
Julian Cooper

How can you call yourself a Marxist if you don’t understand his critique of capitalism?
This, I didn't call myself Marxist prior to reading Marx, I just said I was socialist. Now I'm a Marxist, I've read two volumes of Capital and a bunch of other stuff.

Parker King
Parker King

now the economy is mostly based on services
leaving aside what other people said (they're right), transport and comms are a productive act. a number of things classed as "services" are actually production.

Julian Green
Julian Green

Indeed, well then Mr. Well read, would you like to debunk OP's lack of theory here?
desuarchive.org/leftyb/thread/3233/

Gavin Johnson
Gavin Johnson

arguing with retards on a RANDOM board
Nah fam

Asher Campbell
Asher Campbell

Isn't capital shite? There are numerous authors who have dismantled the entire book

Angel Lopez
Angel Lopez

Name a book about political economy that hasn't been "dismantled" by numerous authors.

Zachary Ward
Zachary Ward

It's not shite, it's right. The bourgeois hate it because it's a scientific theory of why capitalism is fucked.

Jonathan Gray
Jonathan Gray

marx or engels approved the english translationn of the manifesto iirc

Jaxson Diaz
Jaxson Diaz

Apparently so many that you couldn't even name one

Leo Miller
Leo Miller

I have so far yet to see a single bourgeois critique of Capital that doesn't rely on outright misunderstanding, and believe me I've looked. It's so flagrant that the only real explanation is that most bourgois economists are either liars, retarded, or both (usually both). The closest critique I have ever found that doesn't rely on outright misunderstanding or misrepresentation is the Sraffian transformation problem, and that one is still retarded when you realise that the main hypothesis in marxian price theory attempts to establish that there is a proportionality between mean embodied labour of a commodity and the mean of the market price over time. As such it is an empirical hypothesis which must be debunked by the data, which bourgeois economists shy away from because they are wrong and don't like to be proven wrong.

Also Sraffa is stupid, because his formulation on competitive price doesn't take into account MOP, making it non-marxian, which means his formulation actually has nothing to do with Marx's price theory. The very thing his formulation was supposed to challenge. Pic related, Sraffa's formulation of competitive price. l is labour, w is wages, r is rate of profit. Notice that lack of MOP taken into account

Attached: sraffaprice.png (2.34 KB, 209x66)

Thomas Nelson
Thomas Nelson

when you transcend Capital to realize that the LTV is not actually based on labor but the relationship of labor to the environment and labor's relation to labor

Aiden Cruz
Aiden Cruz

Sraffa was a neo-Ricardian IIRC

Jack Foster
Jack Foster

tfw a lecturer who isn't even an economist says the LTV has been empirically been unproven
<tfw someone has managed to empirically disprove the entire fundamental basis of economics

Dylan Cooper
Dylan Cooper

LTV, falling rate of profit, the "transformation problem" have all been proven numerous times or found to not be a "problem". And they have been tackled from different angles (Cock, Kliman, Kržan, Bajt and many others)

Jeremiah Williams
Jeremiah Williams

tfw too much of a brainlet to read capital

Attached: 2225bb5fbe48d4b6c414c050b0d155c3e06d854a13ef0281827c6b340771a241.jpg (105.98 KB, 601x601)

Colton White
Colton White

Is volume '4' of Capital worth reading?

Caleb Brown
Caleb Brown

Just watch the movie.

Luis Davis
Luis Davis

Andrew Kliman, please leave (and learn some math.)

Michael Gonzalez
Michael Gonzalez

yfw you realize I read it over twenty years ago, and it's still garbage today.

Ryan Parker
Ryan Parker

What do you reccomend?

William Green
William Green

would be great but no

Luis Jones
Luis Jones

basic economics by stefan molyneux

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit