Serious questions

I'm not going to give you economics lessons, learn about the marginal revolution and the subjective theories of value, it's been proven for a long time that objective theories are incomplete and it's not for nothing that liberalsvhave surpassed Ricardo.

Explain ?

See the answer above. But to be honest, I think like Alfred Marshall; in the short term, the marginalists are right: the price is determined only by the marginal utility, which is established on the market according to supply and demand, according to consumer preferences, which tend to give more value to what is rare. But in the long term, the objective value of the good, i.e. its production cost, which can be considered to depend largely on the number and degree of technicality - and therefore, ultimately, on the value - of the working hours it incorporates, is decisive. Companies must take this into account to balance their income statement: they cannot sell indefinitely at the market price if this price does not cover their production costs and does not pay their employees (especially since selling at a loss is prohibited in France as in many market economy countries).

In the short term, therefore, the baker, hairdresser or shoe seller, in setting his price, takes into account the offer (he will go to see the prices of competitors, analyse their catalogue, practice the "find cheaper and you are reimbursed", a way of bringing this type of information via the customers themselves, etc.) and the demand (he will be interested in consumer tastes, possibly make market studies, etc.), even if it means selling at a loss or with little profit to integrate into the market. Then, in a second phase (medium and long term), it will take into account its costs. In this case, it can be said that the exchange value of a good includes an objective part that can be measured by the value of the work of the person who produced it, more generally by the costs and a subjective part, determined on the market.

lol

< Thus, a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people. (…) Thus, a common language is one of the characteristic features of a nation. (…) Thus, a common territory is one of the characteristic features of a nation.
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm#s1

For him, the nation is not racial, if tomorrow all the French are replaced by the population of Senegal as long as they are communists and speak French, everything is fine.

So Willi Muzenberg, Marcuse, the Frankfurt school, etc… none of this exists?

No. I'm in France and it's late, I'll come back tomorrow. Good night user

I'm on the way in between work, but I can tell you that a major reason is that contemporary economic markers are mathematically insolvent - marginal theories of value and their proponents have always addressed the fact that, within their school, there is a remarkable theoretical consistency; however, their system of valuation does not actually perform mathematical compression of data - they invent terms (of data, not terminology) and processes that effectively exceed the present empiric data or predictable existence of data. This creates a major problem over any non-negligible time-step in that we effectively create a nonsensical basis for predicting value. To the benefit of the marginalists, we can say that there is a massive reduction of data redundancy if we create an infinitesimally small step of time, such that we can claim that there exists a point that, irrelative to the rest of the present data, there exists a minimal distention between existing and supposed data - this, however, does not solve the problem. Though this was an extremely cursory explanation, this effectively rules out Samuelson and Sraffian theories for valuation.
The major point to take away is that objective theories of value have not languished and sat idle in the development of technologies, but rather the acute orthodoxy of contemporary marginalists and neoclassical economics have failed to create a scientifically-appreciable means for metering value, relying instead on the ubiquity and mass-function of the market to supplant the possibility that alternatives may arise. For a great deal of time, they could rest on their laurels - monetarists, Keynesians - old and new, Austrian school, and social-democratic orienteers - for there was, as they said, no capable force to calculate and process the necessary information to optimally plan economic factor distribution and production. It is unfortunate then, that they, when they choose to peek once more at the state of their arguments against the Labor-value theorists, in between board meetings and self-aggrandizing conferences and the grand religiosity of their academic "lectures", to find that those most carefully divined objections to socialist construction have been dead in theory from the beginning, and rendered out from the practical sphere by Kantorovich and Glushkov and Beer.

The "dismantling" of objective values of theory has been a most convincing ruse, a great smokeshow of mirror and glass. In the end, the revitalization and empiric turn of the neoclassical and marginalist schools has been a pronounced cosmetic response to its general and continued trend and reputation amongst the physical sciences - a litany of atrophied designs and prettied diatribes, a lurching, walking amalgam of useful propaganda to defend a domineering and overarching system for the reproduction and concentration of capital and economic factors.

1. Its all well and good for you to stride in and assert that Marxist economics is bunk, however if you want any sort of dialogue you're going to need to actually point to the issues you have, we can't really address anything as nebulous as 'its been refuted'.
2. You seem to believe that internationalism is somehow related or equivalent to 'cosmopolitanism', this doesn't seem merited.
You also pretty badly misread Stalin if you think his model of what constitutes a nation denies culture and is just the sum of territory and language, this is blatantly false given the entire premise of his 'Marxism and the national question'. So you're pretty badly characterising Stalin's position there, which mind you is not some universal marxist or communist take on nationhood. It appears you are either intentionally constructing a strawman to heroically defeat or you are unintentionally titling at windmills.

Statue faggot tries to sound smart.
LTV was adopted by marx in his economic explanation for how capitalism works and how it would fail. His works goes way beyond his economic part. The main purpose of his economic theory was to showcase exploitation.
Marginal utility was a consequence of old value models being either in agreement with marx's view, which was undesirable since economists are in their great majority card carrying capitalists, and the inherent inprecision and uselessnes of such large scale models when it comes to increase profits and predict markets.
Don't you dare come saying that academic economy studies are exempt from ideological manipulation.
Either way, marxism is not the only school of communist tought, and even if his economic writings are dated, they are not really relevant to the establishment of communism. LTV is a description of capitalism. Communists aim to abolish production for profit altogether, with many of us coming from non economical viewpoints LTV becomes trully irrelevant under communism.

On your second take.
IDPOL.
besides capitalism has been the greatest trasher of national identities. Rightwingers just seem to be real selective about it. Most eurocunts are fine with a mcdonalds and a starbucks on every motherfucking corner but get triggered when they see a mosque.
There is no inherent "globalist cosmopolitanism" in communism. Internationalism just asks for the workers of the world to work together for global communism. Nowhere it calls for the degradation of local cultures.
Cmon don't try to sound smart while believing in this low tier revisionist conspirancy theory.

youtube.com/watch?v=emnYMfjYh1Q
It's 15 minutes, I'm sure you can manage that.
You seem to be conflating value and price. Marxian economics do not deny the influence of supply and demand on *price* - however, that price is conditioned in the first place by how much labour is required to produce a good, with value being the pole around which a commodity's price oscillates.

Attached: asaadsad.png (1266x546 342.04 KB, 425.84K)

how can you call economics theory or science if it's literally nothing but muh subjectivism feels>reals

I second this. I've given some thought to the economic question but am too drunk to answer.

As for
This, I think, is the core of your second question OP. I think it's mostly based on a fundamental misunderstanding. We do view people(s) as more than mere economic agents. It's just that fundamentally we see material/economic realities to be the ones that limit any other aspiration a person/people might have.

The degree of this differs from Leftist to Leftist, but I for example think that it'd be best to allow people to uphold their cultural/national traditions as far as possible, given they don't trample on others. The problem is that capitalism necessitates a constant revolution in modes of production and the way we live our lives. In our view, cultural/national traditions and loyalties aren't born out of some "innate" principle inherent in the genome. They are born out of material and economic realities which give them shape and transform them from generation to generation.

An agrarian society gives rise to a certain set of values and traditions which urbanisation in time destroys. While a more communal village society once set incentive for the traditional family unit with all the values that upheld it, an atomised society (created mainly by ever accelerating division of labour and libertarian economics) based on little else but trade and exchange has necessarily given rise to the individual as the core of society with all the narsisistic hedonism it entails.

A right winger on the other hand observes the same developments we observe, but comes to the conclusion that while the economic system shouldn't or can't be changed, the "culture" should or can. He then goes on to advocate a society in which we're still slaves to capital, but through "cultural" changes in ideas and customs we somehow counteract the inevitable erosion it has on our culture. This is in our view a schizophrenic world view. It projects an erosion that's inherent in the system onto the people that live under that system and demands of them a transformation that's not possible under the economic demands they're subserviant to (which the right winger refuses to change).

Academic "economics" is a sham fyi. Sugar-coated stuff - the practical end is taught in "business" courses now.

Rest assured, someone might tell you LTV was disproved, but they are saying this only because their own school disagrees with it - and it's not even a totally coherent disagreement. You can't advocate for capitalism and then try to claim that labor doesn't generate value which is then separated into profits and wages - that's how capitalism works. If any of these academics ever actually hired anyone for a business, they couldn't stick to the anti-LTV line in their actual conduct.

Cultural Marxism is not a thing. At least not the thing you think it is - also, we aren't for a "great cosmopolitan mix." That's not internationalism. We are not strictly anti-nation, but we advocate solidarity among nations and cooperation among workers as opposed to capitalist exploitation of some nations by others.

The Frankfurt School's writers, the "cultural Marxists," actually lamented the fact that Capitalism was displacing cultural tradition in favor of a profit-driven hodgepodge. This was their cultural analysis - they were opposing the exact thing which people wrongfully claim they advocated for.

That said, race is bullshit. Race didn't even exist as a concept until relatively recently - drop it, you don't need race to advocate for tradition or nations. In fact, race has displaced these things - if you're fighting for "whiteness," you're fighting for nothing. Until capitalism, there was never a white society. There were Irish, Scots, English, Sicilians, Greeks, etc. but whiteness has no culture.

OP if you want to argue in good faith you should probably not mention "cultural marxism", given that it's a retarded conspiracy theory made by nazis and will likely enrage leftists.

unironically believing nations are racial.
Just because stalin said nations are not racial and that "a common language is one of the characteristic features of a nation" this is not the end all be all. in fact the answer is right infront of your face: "historically constituted community of people" nation is the present cultural state and teritory of a group of individuals that share a common past. If you killed all french people and airdropped a bunch of africans in france they would not be french because they were not inserted in french culture, not because of their genes.
What is france if not a bunch of people that share a french tradition, speak french and live in a common patch of land under their feet?
Honestly if you file french people in the gentic level you will get a massive pool, it's a big country in the middle of europe that has many subcultures and migrations in the past.

addendum; sure you can study empirical economic facts, but can it do anything but post-hoc analyses? Can it make predictions? t. not studied neoclassical/marginalist economics

Not an argument of any sort, you're going to have to produce something tangible if you want good faith engagement.
yes, because they rightly realised that ricardo and smith had unfortunate implications for them (marx)
Now you've shifted the goalposts massively, initially you claimed 'Stalin denies any racial and cultural reality' now you've shifted that to just 'racial reality'. Not that it matters since you're not really engaging with Stalin and demonstrating how his idea of a nation is incorrect.
I mean this doesn't fit with Stalin's idea of a nation at all, they would not constitute a nation as they would not be a "historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture"
Moreover i get the sense you confuse country and nation which are two very different things.
They absolutely do, however how do these people relate at all to your claims? which of their ideas or actions do you take umbrage with?

It's not that complicated. One believes that Capitalism is unjust. That it ruins lives and leads to bad things. That bosses exploit there workers, but don't believe in a particularly arcane bit of Marxists speculation called the labor theory of value.

Just read a synopsis of The Jungle while repeating, "but LTV may or may not be true" over and over.

Utility itself presumes to quantify value in objective units: utils. Hilariously without any real justification, which makes it the worst of both worlds.

Psst, what's that? An objective factor. You couldn't even last a sentence without shifting on the subjective value proposition.

Another objective factor.

I am increasingly suspecting, especially reading your post, that no one in orthodox economics really takes subjective value seriously. Not on a coherent philosophical level. They just say they do because they think it's anti-Marxist, and it dissuades calls to share wealth with the masses.

Stalin it trying to hammer down what a "Nation" really is. We say it intuitively and feel like we know it when we see it. He then goes into various parts, possibly contradictory ones, that seem to make up a nation so he can find the universal logic of what truly is a nation vs vague feeling.

Keep in mind Stalin lived in the Russian empire and in an era where Austria-Hungary was a thing. In an age of Monarchs that ruled vast trans-ethnic swaths of people. Most in his day would have agreed Austria-Hungary was a nation. But by no means is it singularly racial.

Similarly there exists separate nations that share racial characteristics. North and South Korea. Australia and UK. Therefore we conclude that a nation alone is not just defined by racial characteristics. Though it CAN be, and often is, e.g. Japan.

shut the fuck up postmodernist

Then, in a second phase (medium and long term), it will take into account its costs. In this case, it can be said that the exchange value of a good includes an objective part that can be measured by the value of the work of the person who produced it, more generally by the costs and a subjective part, determined on the market.

Isn't this on its own an admission on the importance of the cost of labor value (which is mostly the cost it requires for laborers to continue to exist and come into work) is actually deeply important in macroeconomics, which is where LTV is actually meant to apply?

Attached: 05117b03360e6a591ef64fa07d260d2d7443d2aeac9cded56f644286a3fd2e6f.jpg (544x544, 68.98K)

Boom post. Thanks.

I don't take questions that are phrased in terrible tactician's vernacular seriously.

It's pretty interesting how, when you look through various archives, the spacing really did change right after gamergate got popular.
Hope right-wingers enjoyed it.

i) Marxist thought is not a monolith. There are people out there who perfectly subscribe to a class-based analysis and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall but do not believe in the marxist theory of value.
Contemporary economic studies have dubious epistemological interest.

ii) While you bring legitimate points (I believe in internationalism as inter-nations rather than the dissolution of nations) you are spooked beyond belief by mainstream media (and I'm a Frenchman).

LTV; the value of a thing is the sum total of the labour that went into it. You cannot have things without labour. The objective value of a good is how much labour went into the creation of it and all it’s component parts. Over a large scale, this means the average amount labour that goes into the creation of the goods. It is from this point that economies should be planned. Currency while it is still necessary should denote this average, only then can it be an accurate representation of resources available and only then can an economy achieve proper planning that is not haphazard and destructive. Things do have inherent values. Steel is hard, crude oil is viscous, carrots and steaks are nutritious. Supply and demand do not change these qualities. An economy based on subjective estimates of these values is one based on feels and not reals. At this basic level you can see it is in fact subjective theories of value which are fundamentally wrong. You are not dealing with a science, you are dealing with the random whims of billions of people all with different aims goals and intentions, a large proportion of which are Ill intentions.

How exactly have these theories been debunked? Because supply and demand control price? No advocate of the LTV disputes this. That’s just price. That is not value. 1oz of gold is 1oz of gold whether you pay 12 or 20 pounds for it.

You then go on to talk about culture which I think is actually great. What is a culture based on but it’s shared VALUES and yet you pretend like values even in the most basic, scientific sense aren’t something fixed that can be calculated but something subjective that every snowflake can just decide upon. It is here that we find the degeneration of social values alongside the degeneration of economic values. Everything has a price in capitalism, every culture, but nothing has any real tangible value. Capitalism destroyed first the community and then the nuclear family. These things did not happen in communist states, they happened under liberal capitalism, with the ideological drive of a subjective theory of value. You push communities off of land in order to make those communities work for a wage, you break down the communities on that land. You make mom and dad work so much they have no time for child rearing, you break down the nuclear family.

And finally, google kultural bolshevismus yoh are pedalling Nazi propaganda repackaged. As I said above, the degeneration of culture happened under capitalism. MTV, Hollywood, these are capitalist enterprises, so is Starbucks, McDonald’s, etc.

...

This is the only good post in this thread, so of course it has no replies.

The marginal theory of value is unfalsifiable and basically a dead end for anyone genuinely interested in price theory. It has zero scientific basis because no metric could prove it incorrect or even imply that it may be false. It is only popular among economists because it serves moneyed interests, in the same way that the genocide of native Americans has been quietly swept under the rug by western historians for 200 years. Scholarship is not immune to propaganda.

The Ricardian theory, on the other hand, may not have been proven absolutely correct but it CAN be proven wrong. So far, it has not. Measured against all other forms of input including energy, electricity, oil, steel, silicon and other prominent product inputs, labor-time is by a wide margin the most consistently correlated with price, with one noteworthy outlier in the form of the oil industry (possibly explained by Ricardian rent theory).

Please refer to this study for a detailed explanation: users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf

Attached: image.jpg (960x640, 76.12K)

gets it

Marginalism was dismantled in the 1950s in the Cambridge Capital Controversy. Bourgeois economists such as Paul Samuelson accepted defeat at the time, but they continued to preach something that is objectively wrong.

There is a lot written on this topic, but unfortunately there is no simple easy read. Wikipedia is a start: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_capital_controversy#Sraffian_presentation

This is why I think socialists need to read more of Post-Keynesian economics than Marxian. PKE doesn't necessarily rely on marginalism or the LTV.

Hello bait post.

i) Marginalism doesn't explain anything. It's a complete non-answer that only works as a placeholder to explain equilibrium prices for economic forecasting. It has also been a dismal failure and can't explain anything of note, which is why marginalist theories have to be re-jigged every so often to account for new developments. The predictions of the LTV have been confirmed through empirical data, as has the general observation that value (and thus price) tends to scale with labor-time inputs, albeit imperfectly (extractive industries like oil being the major outliers).

I have yet to hear an argument against the predictions of the LTV. It's usually arguments against the axiom itself (and I'm talking about actually credible arguments, not "DURRR I FEEL LIKE VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE" that you hear from right-wing tards). The reality of life is that capitalists need people to work in order to produce stuff with their privately held means of production, and so far as we engage in commodity exchange - which is the vast majority of what is exchanged with money - capitalists are beholden to the costs of labor and the demands of the workers, whether they'd like to be or not. Those workers are working for a wage which can be ostensibly exchanged for commodities so they can live. The capitalists are compelled to pay it. In a way, it is subjective and tautological, but it is also a tautology we live with and accept as real for some bizarre reason, which is why we live in this asinine system where people are expected to place themselves at the disposal of capitalists for moral reasons (which is insane and dumb as fuck). Once a capitalist decides he wants to produce stuff to make a profit, though, he must operate within the bounds of physics. He can't wish away that labor costs so much to reproduce, or that things can be produced without labor.

ii)What the fuck is this horseshit? None of this relates to Marx's theory or understanding of economics in any way.
What Stalin said is exactly right and the stance any non-retarded person should have. There is nothing special or mystical about a nation or the volk or whatever Hitlerite nonsense you're trying to push. If millions of Senegalese enter France, then it becomes something different, but why am I supposed to care that much? The Senegalese aren't villains for wanting to move to France (and from Marx's point of view, the French weren't necessarily villainous for colonizing Senegal in the first place, Marx being quite Eurocentric in his views).
I've never quite understood why I'm supposed to give a shit about "my tribe" so damn much. I can acknowledge the achievements of white people and the culture without believing there is some mystical whiteness that made it happen. Most of the non-white people I come into contact with just want to get on with their lives and accept the supremacy of white culture anyway to varying degrees, and even if they didn't, the existence of people who don't believe in white culture does not mean white people are going extinct ZOMGWTF. White culture's greatest enemy isn't brown people, it's themselves. (The particular people who get assblasted over white identity politics are a whole other thing, because they tend to be the worst failures of the white race and an embarrassment to the culture, and they're mostly projecting their own failures as human beings onto other people and blaming them.)

So many answers, I'm not going to be able to answer everything now.

(i) The labor theory of value is the economic theory according to which the value of goods comes entirely from the work employed or incorporated. From the point of view of the labor theory of value, the exchangeable value is determined by the quantities of work required for production. This implies, in a way, that the value of economic goods is based exclusively on the relative amount of work required.

The first formulation of the labor theory of value can be found in Adam Smith. Adam Smith attributed two meanings to Value: one that takes the name of value in use (or utility), the other, that of value in exchange. For Adam Smith, work is the real measure of the exchangeable value of any commodity. He says, "The real price of each thing, what each thing really costs the person who wants to buy it, is the work and the effort he has to put in to get it. »

David Ricardo, in the same way, in his example of the hardworking jeweller, refers to consumer esteem: he is paid twice as much per hour as an ordinary worker for this reason. It therefore refers to the "values" present in the minds of consumers.

Marx will take up the same idea by his notion of "socially necessary work", i.e. a kind of average of working hours for a given task, an implied average, at a given time in time and space, by the state of the art, know-how, morals, desires, etc.

However, there is a problem: the values of goods are not only regulated by the quantities of work incorporated, but also by the "length of time that must elapse before they can be brought to market", as Ricardo says. This means that the value of a piece of fabric does not have the same composition as that of a supersonic aircraft.

If Ricardo admitted that this theory was an approximation, Marx would transform it into absolute truth (from which he would draw his theory of surplus value to "explain" the worker's alienation). He wondered how goods that seemed so diverse, so heterogeneous in terms of their value in use could be made comparable between them. The solution he finds at Smith and Ricardo is that all goods are the product of work, all "crystallized work". This is how they can be exchanged.

The Austrian school rejects the labor theory of value in the name of the subjectivity of value and formulates the marginal theory of value. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk was the first to refute the Marxist labor theory of value by showing that it does not explain production prices based on the price of labor.

Marxist theory can be refuted mathematically. I will try to be simple: Let V be the "variable capital" corresponding to salaries and C the constant capital corresponding to machines, tools, buildings, land, etc. Let us also consider pl, the added value generated by the boss of the employees' work. We define E, the exploitation rate by equation E = pl/V, and P, the profit rate by equation : P = pl/(C + V)/V. The "organic" composition of the capital of the company in question is defined by equation K = (C + V)/V.

Using these different equations, we can express the profit rate (P) as a function of the organic composition of capital (K) and the exploitation rate (E). Indeed, pl = V. E; P = V.E/ (C + V); therefore P = E/K.

However, under conditions of perfect competition, which is Marx's reference framework, the exploitation rate (E) and the profit rate (P) are the same in all industries regardless of the organic composition of capital. However, the last equation shows that if the organic composition of capital (K) varies from branch to branch or from enterprise to enterprise, the exploitation rate being given and everywhere the same, the profit rate (P) varies from branch to branch or from enterprise to enterprise. Which is impossible.

ii) I think that when we get to the question of identity we reach the hard point that prevents me from being a communist. You have no racial or community consciousness. I live in France, I see the fruits of immigration every day. We are going to the civil war. Of course there is no such thing as a French race, but as de Gaulle said: "It is very good that there are yellow French, black French, brown French. They show that France is open to all races and has a universal vocation. But only if they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would no longer be France. We are above all a European people of white race, Greek and Latin culture and Christian religion. Let's not tell each other any stories!" Immigration destroys the West and people are becoming more and more aware of it. Race exists, it is as important as culture, and by not seeing it you are blind in your analysis. Moreover, the liberals you are fighting know it very well, that is also why they brought in non-whites at the beginning; to break the revolutionary and social aspirations of the average white European man. As the song No Pasaran says: "The Moors Franco brought in / They want to enter Madrid / As long as there will be militiamen / The Moors will not pass"

The West is on the brink of widespread civil war because of the failure of the multiracial and multicultural liberal democracy. If you don't realize it, no one will listen to you for the rest. I see it in Europe, where people now vote first and foremost for the point of view of one party or another on immigration, identity, security and so on. Social issues are now in third place, because the situation is so serious. The great replacement exists, and I care, unlike many people who have posted here.

Nope, completely false. Read Capital.

Are they not, then?
Yes. Abstract labour content is the only metric by which one can compare two dissimilar commodities for the purpose of exchange.

If I'm reading you correctly here and you consider surplus-value to be "generated by the boss", I really have to wonder how much attention you paid when (if) you read Marx.

How would you respond to and ?

Seriously, expecting him to actually read Capital is asking too much of him. Dude doesn't have an original thought in him, literally everything he has written is some sort of meme garbage. Why are we allowing this tard to post?

and refuted your argument nicely.
Basically no one actually believes in marginalism any more (if it was ever anything but a ruse to dupe the plebs into thinking they knew the answer).

If your standard for nationalism is Hitler, you'll find that very few thinkers fit that standard, whether on the left or right. Even people like Mussolini or Evola thought Hitler was autistic on race. If you think Stalin is an example of outrageous cosmopolitanism, you are simply deluded and too high on memes.

Also, the cognitive dissonance required to defend capitalist economics in the same breath as you reject mass immigration is massive. Mass immigration and globalization are FEATURES of advanced capitalism. It simply cannot survive without them anymore. The only alternative right now is massively increased exploitation of native workers, which I doubt is something you want. Migration doesn't happen because of soyboys on twitter or "cultural marxists", it happens as a byproduct of global inequality, wars and the capitalists' need for an reserve army of labor.

Since this is a good thread (and a shame faggot mods anchored it), I'd have nothing to add to the already good answers here in this thread, except reaffirm that so many neoclassical, post-keynesian and other economists, have pointed out (in lectures, not in talkshows or panels!) that the ruling defenders of economic orthodoxy don't actually believe their own premises anymore. None of them does. This is a development that happened after the 2008 crash, but was already lingering underneath before.

Yet the advice governments and preach publicly their theories, despite they know their premises are beyond shady, but they do so a) because it's in their class interests and b) it's what they learned. They can't do anything else.

WHY IN FUCK IS THIS ANCHORED YOU DUMBSHIT RETARD MODS WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM

How can you talk about 'cooperation' if there is nothing to share? It is the heterogeneity and inequality that fosters cooperation.

Nations are a cultural concepts, while goods are civilisational. If you separate them without feeding a structured social norms and patterns to the youth, you a society collapses in 1 generation, unless 'ersatz' means of production are found, what's the core of relation between china and the west.

You morons think you are edgy , but your horizons are deeply embedded in a marxist reality.

no it isn't. It is a basic evolutionary trait. Teams work better than individuals at completing tasks: source, try hunting a mammoth alone. Very difficult. Now try hunting that mammoth with 20 buddies. A lot easier. No part of this requires the hunters to look the same or be the same in any other way bar having a brain, 2 arms, 2 legs and how they communicate with one another i.e. the language they share. It does not require one great hunter or several great hunters among lesser hunters.

false nations are economic entities. This is again your feels over reals. Cultural develops because of material conditions, culture does not create material conditions. Mountain peoples have certain cultural traits, sea faring peoples have certain cultural traits. They developed cultures to fit the conditions, they did not one day decide "we pray to sea gods, so we should go find some ocean". are you fucking retarded?

this is completely meaningless rubbish.

and no for us its not about being edgy. Marxism is a science. No right wing economic position bases itself in science. Not one. The racial stuff if you reach very far you could claim to be a science, only it is one that is widely debunked. The libertarian Austrian School literally do not claim to be scientific, they state they exact opposite. The authoritarian right are also, admittedly and specifically idealist, they do not base their world view on science, but on the notion of some greater good they are striving to achieve. Neither of these have a basis in material reality.

Attached: 1457343475283.jpg (216x255, 22.04K)

I have got 20 research papers to prove this statement.
If you think that all that differenciates people is number of limbs and langage, then you deserve where you'll end up with your views.

culture DOES create human social norms and social norms create strure of organization of labour.

Beause of your limited understanding, it may appear so. Where do goods come from if not from chip-controlled, alloy casted, synthetic-oil lubed, nerd-designed machines?

Science, like warfare, does not choose its objectives. Sponsors do. And the objective of Marxism is the destruction of civilisation.
You use the phrase 'science' with religious reverence. You need to heal your confrmation bias.

I don't understand that. Hitler was a leftie. The closest match is Italy.
read how did it happen that Mussolini reached to power. People were DESPERATE for any order as nothing worked anymore due to commie infiltration.
I doubt you know anything about organization and insurgency tactics employed by communists anywhere between 1848 thru 1968.

what is reality? Matter itself doesn't even exist. So I don't understant.

It's anchored because OP is obviously a retard and not going to argue in good faith, and will degenerate into calling us Jewish golems or something. The responses here could be put in a FASQ thread to respond to such retarded arguments cogently.

Whoops, didn't see this gem. I'm not going to bother with i) because your "proof" is moronic and based on beliving Marx said things Marx didn't say. But point ii), whew, there's a lot to unpack…

a) No one is expecting you to give up your fucking identity, you sniveling retard. I am a white man, growing up where white culture is dominant. (To get to the points others have been making about race: yes, race exists. Stop being silly. Before the modern era, concepts of a European identity were largely grounded in religion rather than a biological concept of race, but it was well understood that white European meant Christendom, and that most white people held Christianity of some sort in common, even if they fought over doctrinal differences.) Communism is not telling us to become Muslim, or breed with Africans, or whatever nonsense you believe we stand for. Communists simply deny that there is some mystical quality to the nation-state beyond the fact of its existence, which is the opinion of everyone - conservative, liberal, Communist - who isn't a fucking retard.
(b) The West is nowhere near civil war or revolution, you nitwit.

And this, in a nutshell, is why no one takes you seriously, and why you fail at life.
Tell me, though, if matter doesn't exist, why do you care about anything, and why does any of this even matter? You could just as well seal yourself in your room, live in la la land and not bother us with your retardation. I'll be honest, I spend much of my time pretending the world doesn't exist, but I never saw any appeal in the moronic ideology of the right. It fails even as escapism. It's like so much shitty pop culture media - your entire ideology is just another commodity to be marketed and sold. It amazes me that you're shilling for it.

If you studied some quantum mechanic you'd understand. All that exists is energy and interaction between its manifestations
Reality is experiential in nature - we create it by our perception of the world and since we are many, reality is inter-subjective.
Being part of the world, exisiting on biological level, we are bound to satisfy our biological needs.
Biological… now I get it, you marxists see a human only as its biology, as an animal.
That explains your inability to abstract between layers of cognition.

And why do you assme I'm on the right? How narrowminded of you. So 'binormative'.

Attached: 1549228265307.jpg (1280x720, 76.85K)

Studying "What The %$#^ Do We Know?" or clickbait pop-science articles is not a study of quantum mechanics.

You're a fucking right winger trying to bait and failing miserably at it. Your solipsism is a hallmark of right-wing ideology and thought, too.

Since you've already decided you're a believer in literal lala land and refuse to believe in a material reality, there is nothing to discuss with you, as if you were someone worth speaking to. I can keep saying you're fucking retarded but like a bad case of herpes, you'll keep coming back.

Attached: DQ1-NES-GOLEM.png (49x49, 1020)

This is why I love leftypol. If OP tried to troll reddit, they would spend most of their time squabbling over question ii. Leftypol goes for the more interesting question of value theory, even though it was phrased as a troll post.

so amusing. Are you angry, brother?

It's funny, how majority of your world doesn't objectively exist, and you get upset at someone trying to tell you that.
Try language, can you touch a language? Can you cut it in half? How much does it weigh? использоeшь языки?

Does mathematics exist?

Heh, I dared click into socialism_101 on reddit yesterday. Chock full of these sort of troll posts, and idiots who stumbled over themselves failing to respond to them. r/soc's moronic policies did their work, back before that shit started there were a few decent posters who would make actual responses (even if they were leftcommy).

That said I could actually argue with some meaningful criticisms of the LTV (because there are many to be made), and whether a more general theory of value is appropriate. Marginalist mumbo-jumbo obviously should be thrown away though - it is worse than worthless, it is an impediment to any sort of actual understanding and was intended to be such.

Really, the concept of exchange value itself is pretty fucked, which is where I think much of the confusion comes from. Instead of doing the obvious and producing and distributing to meet demand so much as is possible, we're expected to labor on the assumption that we need to seek a "fair exchange" in a presumably antagonistic relation. It's silliness in the first place, which is why value theory debates get so fucking autistic.

No, retard, the computer I'm using is real. Your pathetic brain and whatever pathetic environment you're rotting away in while on NEETbux is real. It isn't a figment of your spirit's imagination, or the imagination of a God, or whatever nonsense you believe in. I know it's painful to face, but better to accept it than to get this retarded about it.

I never said anything about imagination.
You didn't guess anything about me, I can say I feel a bit sorry for you.
Good day to you.

You'll be back.

Science does choose its objectives. What the hell are you talking about? The very beginning of the process of the scientific methodology is defining your objectives, defining what you are going to attempt to learn and how you're going to go about doing it.
This is just flat bad faith argumentation.

We will still have an antagonistic relationship with distribution. Some workers will want more than others. Socialism doesn't eliminate self interest.

Attached: 1548218815528.jpg (484x583, 50.7K)

Of course it doesn't, what I'm saying is that any time you try to compress use-values into a heuristic and put them in an antagonistic situation, you're going to encounter wankery. Witness, for example, how some socialists stumble over themselves when they're asked to explain how scarce resources would be allocated, and eventually reverting back to something like labor money (which leads to a retarded argument about which labors are worth more than others, attempts to use the labor credit system to cajole behavior out of the workers, and so on). At some point you have to ask, what is the purpose of all of this? Are we really going to get bogged down in arguments about how many loaves of bread a vidya game controller is worth? Sure, there would be a black market exchange rate, and the plan would likely have to account for co-opting some of the after-use market on consumer goods, but we're not going to get assblasted over who gets to have a vidya game controller and who does not, or tell people they can't have vidya controllers any more because of some need to appear fair or some bullshit like that.
You could make a scheme of labor credits for compensation if you like, but such a scheme would run into implementation problems if we were actually trying to divine the real value of an individual consumer good using the LTV for a large number of reasons. The LTV is useful for understanding capitalism in the aggregate but it is not a great rubric that I would want to use if I were actually planning an economy, and I don't think the USSR did it that way (someone with more knowledge please correct me if I'm wrong).

unanchor bump

Mentioning the truth angers leftists

...

...

Literally not worth wasting time.

because if the moderation of pol shitposts stop just cause they regurgitate propaganda instead of going full ad hominem race realist retards, thats what this board will be quickly filled with

and im being generous here given the bad faith and strawmen the dude used

wtf am i reading. case in point, that shit deserve anchoring

Just look at what leftpol has become to see why not moderating this kind of faggotry is a bad idea. Almost every thread is either bait from /pol like this, outright race realist autism, or irrelevant memeshit.

Better yet, don't look at leftpol, because you'll need brain bleach afterwards.

Attached: 59f0e976d28abc449178e4b2ed1ac8cdd30cdb59.jpg (678x523, 101.35K)

That's exactly what communist literature teaches.

While your whole, 'haha, I turned it around on you' shtick is great. I can't help but notice that you've reneged from your original bounds of discussion, which were, admittedly for a reactionary, well-constrained and to the point, into this great murk of social politic and 'who makes what essential assumptions game'. Being that we provided answers and you've since retreated into a haze of all of us talking past one another, who's living in a fantasy world is pretty apparent to everyone except you. It would be interesting to discuss the point you made, but, grand chance is - you've not read any communist literature, so nobody has to take what you think about it seriously. Piss off

Yuri Bezmenov was playing his part as a KGB Agent so that USA would self destruct itself.

Show me then, now… would those research papers rely on scientific evidence? I.e. evidence based on collection of data on the material world?

all i said was that for the purposes of hunting in a pack of humans that is what is required. It certainly does not require some hunters to be unequal in abilities. Explain to me how inequality in ability makes the pack better

simply asserting exactly what you have said before is not an argument. Actually refute what i said, the material conditions come first, then the culture. All culture does it reproduce those material conditions and therefore itself.

and where does culture come from but civilisation? that is why the whole thing is nothing but a truism

"Nations are a cultural concepts, while goods are civilisational." means literally nothing even on your own terms

prove this in any meaningful way. The "objective" of marxism if you can call it that, given that it is simply an analytical school, is the liberation of the working class and the bringing about of communism.

marxism is scientifcally verifiable according to the scientific method. I notice you have completely igored what i said about your ideology being idealist. Wonder why that could be.. its almost like you dont actually have an in depth knowledge of the stuff you believe and youve never seen that quote before or thought in those terms.

of course you don't. You undestand very little. Hitler kept capital in place, that is all he did. Markets remained and he hyper inflated them by printing money. Nonetheless, my claim was that he was an idealist and his economic thought was not based in science. This is not refutable, he was quoted many times as being anti materialist, a large part of Nazi/Fascist ideology is a rejection of materialism.

italian fascists also rejected materialism. You all did. Its because you believe in feels over reals.

another meaningless garbage statement

yes i am a commie but ive no idea how communism operates. You on the other hand are either are lolbert or a fascist and dont even know you are an idealist.

so what did those 20 research papers you claim to be abke to quote me on to prove that inequality is what brings co-operation in societies base themselves in?

It is hilarious you are reverting back to these pedantic games and you actually think that makes your position strong

he has been beat out to the point where he is reduced to pretending reality doesn't exist. You know for a fact hes behind his keyboard fuming. This is what converts people. This is why we used to have people posting about how they converted all the time, then we started the anchor and ban fest. It doesn't matter if its in good or bad faith, you don't change your mind by arguing in good faith but through repeated exposure to truths you then are unable to deny. It doesn't happen in the moment, it happens in bed at night later, or in the shower, or on the bus. Same as how i used to believe in anarchism and now do not, certain truths just click.

The point for them isn't to win, it's to flood the zone with retarded drivel so that we're stuck rebutting this shit instead of talking about anything substantial. All it takes is for someone to take the bait and slip up by saying something stupid like "race doesn't exist" for leftypol to be put in an indefensible position, and people do exactly that like every week.