[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta / roulette ] [ GET / ref / booru]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

New Announcement: IRC<=>Matrix bridge #leftypol on Rizon
Feedback Wanted! : Designing Transparency by Default
Proposals done until Monday : /meta/


File: 1608527956707.jpg (8.37 KB, 183x276, szdxcfgvb n.jpg)

 No.307

Is this a good book? Especially for a beginner?

 No.309

Honestly, many people are gonna disagree with me, but, just pick up Das Kapital and get it out of the way.

 No.311

>>309
Why would people disagree?

 No.314

>>311
Because for some reason it's considered "too difficult" for the average normie just getting into anti capitalism.

 No.315

>>314
It takes dedication, and that's easier to have after reading some less dense shit to get interested. I would give up if I started with capital.

 No.316

>>307
piketty doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he mentions Marxism. He’s a Keynesian nerd.

 No.325

>>307
I've never read Piketty's complete work, but he appears to advocate for capitalism with a human face. He ignores the forces that gave rise to capitalism and what pushes it forward. Greed is the problem and we should introduce taxes and more public spending.

If you want to get into Marxism just start with David Harvey's companion, don't waste your time with this Keynesian trash.

 No.326

>>325(me)

I just dowloaded the ebook and am reading the introduction. Here are some thins he is saying about Marx.

>Marx totally neglected the possibility of durable technological progress and steadily increasing productivity, which is a force that can to some extend serve as a counterweight to the process of accumulation and concentration of capital.


Marx never neglected this lol. That is his entire model why the rate of profit tends to fall to zero.

More technological progress means a bigger proportion of surplus value is invested in machinery (constant capital) and less in labour power (variable capital). This will make the return of surplus value decrease, since you require less variable capital, so less exploitation is possible.

Which causes more firms to go bust because production yields less surplus value relative to total capital (s/c+v), or lower rate of profit. It becomes more expensive to keep production going.

He ignores also that competitions are not 'eternal' eventually they end, and somebody loses and the other wins. Which also causes concentration of capital.

>in short Marx took the Ricardian model of the price of capital and the principal of scarcity as the basis of a more thorough analysis of the dynamics of capital…


lmao, commodity anyone?

This man has never read Marx and acts like he supercedes him.

 No.334

>>315
I never really said "Start" with capital. I started with the manifesto. But, I am just saying, capital isn't as intimidating as people make it out to be. The biggest down fall of capital is that Marx tries desperately to be as redundant as possible.

 No.336

>>326
>More technological progress means a bigger proportion of surplus value is invested in machinery (constant capital) and less in labour power (variable capital). This will make the return of surplus value decrease, since you require less variable capital, so less exploitation is possible.

>Which causes more firms to go bust because production yields less surplus value relative to total capital (s/c+v), or lower rate of profit. It becomes more expensive to keep production going.


This seems wrong to me. How does making more commodities lead to less surplus value? Also commodities can be improved, todays computers are cheaper and faster than 30 years ago. Surely they are more valuable.

 No.343

>>336
He’s kind of right but only in an extremely stupid way.

The way the falling rate of profit works is through increasing productive power. The same value is equivalent to more products after productivity improvements because the value of each individual product is reduced, as you can make more of them in the same amount of time with the same labor. The total value remains the same, but you need more capital to keep the individual value of products down to compete with other capitalists. That means as capitalism grows the rate of profit that capitalists are going to get off investment will decline.

So Piketty is right in a way that shows he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about.

 No.366

>>336

Increased productiveness is caused by improved machinery . This will make the commodities cheaper, since less labour has to be invested per single commodity.

The goal of the capitalist is to expand his capital

C-> C'
This expansion is only possible due to exploitation of labour.

Value of C = (c+v)
Value of C'= (c+v) + s

c = constant capital (machinery, raw material, etc. )
v = variable capital (money expended upon labour power)
s = surplus value

Since a bigger proportion of his capital has to be invested in better machinery = constant capital, and since the new machinery allows at the same time for less labour intensive production, less labourers will be employed. Labour is the only source of surplus value, less surplus value will be made.

This is why full automation will never be achieved under capitalism. Capitalism requires profit to be able to reproduce itself and expand itself. No variable capital means no surplus value will be made, capitalism ceases.

 No.368

>>366
>No variable capital means no surplus value will be made, capitalism ceases.
Shouldn't the second formula then be
Value of C'= c + (v + s)
and the first one just
Value of C = c?
Because just because you have constant capital doesn't mean you have to invest in variable capital. A contemporary example being that Philadelphia hospital. It's capital without the investment of variable capital and therefore it's just dead and not making a profit, so it's C = c.

 No.369

>>368
The goal of investingen is getting a profit out of it. Do the workers there work for free?

 No.370

>>369
*investments

 No.376

File: 1608527965371.gif (689.04 KB, 500x346, 1585281818349.gif)

>>336
The amount of value in the economy never changes. Our perception of value is X and all movements of capitalism are to establish equilibrium with X. It is through this myopic rush to stabilize profitability that things like the profit rate drop, wages get squeezed, productivity goes up, etc etc etc when people try to use the government to act on, say, the min wage. Because capital is constantly trying to find equilibrium with what current rate of profit.

Making more commodities means producing above the socially necessary labor time . (The time it takes on average to produce a particular commodity.) So, because you have, again, disturbed the current equilibrium by producing above the socially necessary labor time capital is going to try and stabilize and find the new rate of profit; everyone is going to mad dash to try and meet the new social standard of labor time and thus will raise the average above that of what once was the previous average; You need to understand, also, through this relationship that producing more and doing it more quickly means you are able to lower your prices and, as such, in order to keep up and not die out your competition is going to follow in your coat tails.
It is through this process that the rate of profit or the ability to exploit surplus labor falls because when you raise the bar everyone follows suit, cutting their bottom line and creating a new standard over and over and over and over again.
That is why making more commodities means less over all surplus labor value for the capitalists because everyone is constantly trying to sell their product for lower and lower in a myopic dash to make more profits while simultaneously cutting labor through innovation and increasing productivity.

 No.437

It's fine. It shows that the "neoclassical economists really have to be the most brilliant among their peers to figure out that capitalism is killing everyone. But even when they reach this point, they still won't suggest to get rid of it, merely to reform it with 99 % global tax on the superrich etc.


Unique IPs: 1

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta / roulette ] [ GET / ref / booru]