[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Not reporting is bourgeois


File: 1742103246170-0.png (279.53 KB, 460x306, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1742103246170-1.png (166.24 KB, 425x495, adam smith2.png)

File: 1742103246170-2.png (238.61 KB, 1794x790, ADAM_SMITH.png)

 

Thread #2 is hereby dedicated to Adam Smith, since we had a very dedicated "Smithian" anon keep the previous thread alive for several months. Here's to you buddy. Thanks for posting.

Links:

Archive of Thread #1
https://archive.ph/ROnpO

Featured: An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/38194/pg38194.txt

Youtube Playlists
Anwar Shaikh - Historical Foundations of Political Economy
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTMFx0t8kDzc72vtNWeTP05x6WYiDgEx7
Anwar Shaikh - Capitalism: Competition, Conflict and Crises
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1go
Anwar Shaikh - Capitalism
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLz4k72ocf2TZMxrEVCgpp1b5K3hzFWuZh
Andrew S. Rightenburg - Human-Read Audiobook (not AI voice or TTS voice) of Capital Volume 1
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUjbFtkcDBlSHVigHHx_wjaeWmDN2W-h8
Andrew S. Rightenburg - Human-Read Audiobook (not AI voice or TTS voice) of Capital Volume 2
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUjbFtkcDBlSxnp8uR2kshvhG-5kzrjdQ
Andrew S. Rightenburg - Human-Read Audiobook (not AI voice or TTS voice) of Capital Volume 3
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUjbFtkcDBlRoV5CVoc5yyYL4nMO9ZJzO
Andrew S. Rightenburg - Human-Read Audiobook (not AI voice or TTS voice) of Theories of Surplus Value
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUjbFtkcDBlQa-dFgNFtQvvMOgNtV7nXp
Paul Cockshott - Labor Theory of Value Playlist
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKVcO3co5aCBnDt7k5eU8msX4DhTNUila
Paul Cockshott - Economic Planning Playlist
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKVcO3co5aCDnkyY9YkQxpx6FxPJ23joH
Paul Cockshott - Materialism, Marxism, and Thermodynamics Playlist
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKVcO3co5aCBv0m0fAjoOy1U4mOs_Y8QM
Victor Magariño - Austrian Economics: A Critical Analysis
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpHi51IjLqerA1aKeGe3DcRc7zCCFkAoq
Victor Magariño - Rethinking Classical Economics
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpHi51IjLqepj9uE1hhCrA66tMvNlnItt
Victor Magariño - Mathematics for Classical Political Economy
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpHi51IjLqepWUHXIgVhC_Txk2WJgaSst
Geopolitical Economy Hour with Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7ejfZdPboo&list=PLDAi0NdlN8hMl9DkPLikDDGccibhYHnDP

Potential Sources of Information
Leftypol Wiki Political Economy Category (needs expanding)
https://leftypedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Category:Political_economy
Sci-Hub
https://sci-hub.se/about
Marxists Internet Archive
https://www.marxists.org/
Library Genesis
https://libgen.is/
University of the Left
http://ouleft.sp-mesolite.tilted.net/Online
bannedthought.net
https://bannedthought.net/
Books scanned by Ismail from eregime.org that were uploaded to archive.org
https://archive.org/details/@ismail_badiou
The Great Soviet Encyclopedia: Articles from the GSE tend to be towards the bottom.
https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/
EcuRed: Cuba's online encyclopedia
https://www.ecured.cu/
Books on libcom.org
https://libcom.org/book
Dictionary of Revolutionary Marxism
https://massline.org/Dictionary/index.htm
/EDU/ ebook share thread
https://leftypol.org/edu/res/22659.html
Pre-Marxist Economics (Marx studied these thinkers before writing Capital and Theories of Surplus Value)
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/index.htm
Principle writings of Karl Marx on political economy, 1844-1883
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/economy/index.htm
Speeches and Articles of Marx and Engels on Free Trade and Protectionism, 1847-1888
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/free-trade/index.htm
Political Economy After Marx's Death
https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/postmarx.htm
545 posts and 136 image replies omitted.

File: 1747775972254.jpg (75.04 KB, 1200x675, GraCINnWgAADCQg.jpg)


>>2276605
hahaha wow

>>2276605
just double checked the prices are real

Ep 80 - MMT, Austerity, and Imperialism

>Virginia and Steve from Macro N Cheese Podcast/Real Progressives join Justin and Jeremy in a discussion of Modern Monetary Theory, how it can be used as a radicalizing tool, as well as what it means in the grand scheme of global economics.


>Sources:

>Reclaiming the State by Bill Mitchell and Thomas Fazi
>Seven Deadly, Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy by Warren Mosler
>Modern Money Theory by L. Randall Wray
>The Deficit Myth by Stephanie Kelton
>Global South Perspectives by Fadhel Kaboub
>Jason Hickel's Substack

https://sites.libsyn.com/125454/ep-80-mmt-austerity-and-imperialism


>>2279853
You think nationalizing banks captures money but really it is money that captures you! Money isn't value, value is in production. Want to solve employment? Nationalize production.

>>2279894
>Money isn't value
according to marx, money as the "absolute commodity" embraces the entire world of commodities to become the universal form of value:
<"These objects, gold and silver, just as they come out of the bowels of the earth, are forthwith the direct incarnation of all human labour. Hence the magic of money." [capital vol. 1, chapter 2]
>Want to solve employment? Nationalize production.
sure, im just explaining the keynesian position.

File: 1748369274612.jpg (80.23 KB, 640x385, physiognomy.jpg)

according to engels this text (1845):
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch06.htm
>The southern facile character of the Irishman, his crudity, which places him but little above the savage, his contempt for all humane enjoyments, in which his very crudeness makes him incapable of sharing, his filth and poverty, all favour drunkenness. The temptation is great, he cannot resist it, and so when he has money he gets rid of it down his throat. What else should he do? How can society blame him when it places him in a position in which he almost of necessity becomes a drunkard; when it leaves him to himself, to his savagery? With such a competitor the English working-man has to struggle, with a competitor upon the lowest plane possible in a civilised country, who for this very reason requires less wages than any other. Nothing else is therefore possible than that, as Carlyle says, the wages of English working-man should be forced down further and further in every branch in which the Irish compete with him. And these branches are many. All such as demand little or no skill are open to the Irish. For work which requires long training or regular, pertinacious application, the dissolute, unsteady, drunken Irishman is on too low a plane.
he is saying that immigration lowers the wages of a national working class by a general decline of the standards of living.
marx also wrote this in a letter (1870):
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm
>Ireland is the bulwark of the English landed aristocracy. The exploitation of that country is not only one of the main sources of their material wealth; it is their greatest moral strength. They, in fact, represent the domination over Ireland. Ireland is therefore the cardinal means by which the English aristocracy maintain their domination in England itself … But the English bourgeoisie has also much more important interests in the present economy of Ireland. Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class. And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life.
offering similar sentiments. to marx and engels then, there seems to be a ruling class interest in immigration, which leads to antagonisms in the working class. are there any contrary theoretical notions to this, or is this the consensus?

>>2285537
>the working class has no country
>but how dare you leave your country for one with higher wages

>>2289480
>this is congruous to my earlier comments that inflation largely represents the lowering of the value of the wage
ok
>where capitalist losses are subsidised from this redistribution.
how does it say that?
<On whom has the tax fallen? Clearly on the holders of the original 9,000,000 notes
wouldn't the holders be capitalists? isn't this just MMT?

>>2290197
>are you aware that large capitalist firms are subsidised from their losses by bailouts from the state?
well yeah but where does the text say that? was it also like that in keynes' time?
>MMT is more of an anthropological and historical theory as to the nature of money
>this is a "negative" view of money
so then MMT is keynesian?

>>2290215
>so then MMT is keynesian?
yes totally because keynesians print money and give it to capitalist which is MMT.

>>2290218
I thought the point of MMT was to print money to tax capitalists indirectly. That inflation devalues savings which is largely owned by capitalists, and then the printed money can be allocated by the state towards the public. Isn't that what Keynes claimed to advocate?

>>2290225
>I thought the point of MMT was to print money to tax capitalists indirectly.
Wrong. The point of Keynesianism and MMT is to print money, give it to capitalists, and drive down real wages by inflation so they can hire more labor to offset the crises of capital.
>That inflation devalues savings which is largely owned by capitalists
Devaluing savings means making investment possible by driving down real wages. The inflation compels the worker to work for lower real wages which makes investment possible or more profitable.
>the printed money can be allocated by the state towards the public.
The printed money goes to capitalists, not the public.

>>2290233
Well yes in practice that does seem to be the case.

File: 1748694956720.png (77.12 KB, 1280x720, Graph 28-3.png)

>well yeah but where does the text say that?
it says that inflation acts as taxation - which today, is used to fund capitalists.
>so then MMT is keynesian?
its "post-keynesian", originating in the thought of people like hymen minsky and warren moseler - who has reported that he has never read adam smith or karl marx. he's not an economist, but a financial adviser. MMT has more academic grounding in economic historians like l. randall wray, and some political thinkers of MMT include michael hudson and david graeber.
>was it also like that in keynes' time?
well keynes directly cites the sinister attitude of the state keeping itself alive.
>>2290225
>inflation devalues savings which is largely owned by capitalists
only cash savings. capital assets rise in value during inflation.
>then the printed money can be allocated by the state towards the public. Isn't that what Keynes claimed to advocate?
well, it all depends. keynes approaches the classical theory of say's law ("supply creates its own demand"), and reverses this to be keynes' law of effective demand ("demand creates its own supply"). the strategy for keynes is in raising aggregate demand (AD) in the economy, thus. this is the mechanism which enables prosperity to keynes. AD may be raised in diverting savings into investment, as he writes here:
<"If we are to continue to draw the voluntary savings of the community into “investments,” we must make it a prime object of deliberate State policy that the standard of value, in terms of which they are expressed, should be kept stable; adjusting in other ways (calculated to touch all forms of wealth equally and not concentrated on the relatively helpless “investors”) the redistribution of the national wealth, if, in course of time, the laws of inheritance and the rate of accumulation have drained too great a proportion of the income of the active classes into the spending control of the inactive." [tract on monetary reform, ch. 1, sct. 1]
saving counts as economic inactivity (this is also why investing in capital assets is the best form of "saving"). keynes is also more direct on economic equality and redistribution here:
<"The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live are its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes. The bearing of the foregoing theory on the first of these is obvious. But there are also two important respects in which it is relevant to the second. Since the end of the nineteenth century significant progress towards the removal of very great disparities of wealth and income has been achieved through the instrument of direct taxation — income tax and surtax and death duties — especially in Great Britain. Many people would wish to see this process carried much further, but they are deterred by two considerations; partly by the fear of making skilful evasions too much worth while and also of diminishing unduly the motive towards risk-taking, but mainly, I think, by the belief that the growth of capital depends upon the strength of the motive towards individual saving and that for a large proportion of this growth we are dependent on the savings of the rich out of their superfluity. Our argument does not affect the first of these considerations. But it may considerably modify our attitude towards the second. For we have seen that, up to the point where full employment prevails, the growth of capital depends not at all on a low propensity to consume but is, on the contrary, held back by it; and only in conditions of full employment is a low propensity to consume conducive to the growth of capital. Moreover, experience suggests that in existing conditions saving by institutions and through sinking funds is more than adequate, and that measures for the redistribution of incomes in a way likely to raise the propensity to consume may prove positively favourable to the growth of capital." [general theory, ch. 24, sct. 1]
keynes sees then that redistribution can only be a positive force, for both capital and labour, via circulation. this concedes to smith's own analysis, that the higher the wages, the wealthier a nation,
<"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore, has not the same connection with the general interest of the society as that of the other two." [wealth of nations, ch. 11, sct. 3]
keynes also cites market anarchist silvio gesell as the theorist who supersedes marx:
<"I believe that the future will learn more from the spirit of Gesell than from that of Marx. The preface to The Natural Economic Order will indicate to the reader, if he will refer to it, the moral quality of Gesell. The answer to Marxism is, I think, to be found along the lines of this preface." [general theory, ch. 23, sct. 6]
so that gives you an impression of his thought on the matter.

>>2290306
>keynes also cites market anarchist silvio gesell

The "Market Anarchist" in question:
>In April 1919, Gesell received a call from Ernst Niekisch from the revolutionary government of Bavarian Soviet Republic to come to Munich. This offered him a seat in the so-called Socialization Commission and he was appointed shortly, on suggestion of Erich Müchsam and Gustav Landauer, as the "People's Representative for Finance" (German: Volksbeauftragte für Finanzen) situated in Munich. Gesell worked with law Professor Karl Polenske [de] from the University of Greifswald and the Swiss physician and mathematician Theophil Friedrich Christen. He wrote a law for the creation of Freigeld (Free Money), a currency system he had developed. However, his term lasted for only seven days.
>After the violent end of Soviet Republic, Gesell was arrested. There he shared a cell with the poet Gustav Gräser, whose writing on revolution he funded. After several months in prison, he was acquitted on July 1919 in a high treason trial for his self-defense speech in front of a Munich court martial.[1] He claimed that he didn't have anything to do with the political decisions of the Republic and was just trying to offer a plan to restructure the economy.[10] The legal costs of the process were paid by the state treasury. However, he, Gräser, and others was deported from Bavaria. Immediately after his discharge, Gesell and his supporters resumed their activism for his revolutionary ideas

Keynes chads stay winning. A true Keynesian always ends up working for the bolsheviks.

>>2290306
>which today, is used to fund capitalists.
Thats always been Keynes problem. He separates economics from politics, not knowing "democracy" is DotB and needing a DotP to do what he says he wants.

Thread is almost full. Wondering what third edition will have in store for us?

>>2297382
as the smithposter (and coincidentally, the keynesposter), it seems that my input is largely complete in these threads, since the overarching dispute was resolved by an ultimate submission to the fact that marx's theory of value cannot supersede its classical origins, especially where marx himself admits to the rational grounds upon which bourgeois economy is based, beginning in sir william petty (1623–87);
<"Once for all I may here state, that by classical Political Economy, I understand that economy which, since the time of W. Petty, has investigated the real relations of production in bourgeois society in contradistinction to vulgar economy, which deals with appearances only" [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, footnote 33]
<"William Petty, the father of Political Economy, and to some extent the founder of Statistics" [capital vol. 1, ch. 10, sct. 5]
marx also says that it is thomas hobbes who formulates a notion of labour "power", which is given in his own theory of value:
<"What the working man sells is not directly his Labour, but his Labour Power, the temporary disposal of which he makes over to the capitalist […] One of the oldest economists and most original philosophers of England—Thomas Hobbes—has already, in his Leviathan [1651], instinctively hit upon this point overlooked by all his successors. He says: “The value or worth of a man is, as in all other things, his price: that is, so much as would be given for the Use of his Power.’’ Proceeding from this basis, we shall be able to determine the Value of Labour as that of all other commodities." [value, price and profit, ch. 7]
so far, we have not even left the 17th century to find concurrence. marx further sees that benjamin franklin properly identifies value as abstract labour:
<"The celebrated Franklin [1729], one of the first economists, after Wm. Petty, who saw through the nature of value, says: […] "the value of all things is … most justly measured by labour.” [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, footnote 18]
so far we have seen marx's attribution of correctness to these men where it regards value. but what of surplus value..? lets see.

engels makes reference to marx's work:
<"Marx comments on this passage in the above-named manuscript Zur Kritik, etc., p. 253: “Thus Adam Smith conceives surplus-value […] as the general category, of which profit in the strict sense and rent of land are merely branches.” […] Thus even Adam Smith knew “the source of the surplus-value of the capitalist,” and furthermore also of that of the landlord. Marx acknowledged this as early as 1861" [capital vol. 2, preface to first edition]
continuing, with criticism:
“Nevertheless,” Marx continues, “he [Adam Smith] does not distinguish surplus-value as such as a category on its own, distinct from the specific forms it assumes in profit and rent." [capital vol. 2, preface to first edition]
these are the same remarks which marx makes in "theories of surplus value"; that smith correctly determines the source of surplus value, but fails to abstract it as a singular category. this is similar to marx's comments here:
<"As regards value in general, it is the weak point of the classical school of Political Economy that it nowhere expressly and with full consciousness, distinguishes between labour, as it appears in the value of a product, and the same labour, as it appears in the use value of that product […] it has not the least idea, that when the difference between various kinds of labour is treated as purely quantitative, their qualitative unity or equality, and therefore their reduction to abstract human labour, is implied […] they acquire their “two different values” (use value and exchange value) from “the value of labour" […] Ricardo himself pays so little attention to the two-fold character of the labour which has a two-fold embodiment"[capital vol. 1, ch. 1, footnote 32]
yet he still qualifies this by this statement,
<"Of course the distinction is practically made, since this school treats labour, at one time under its quantitative aspect, at another under its qualitative aspect."
as in the case of smith's analysis of revenues then, marx sees that the classical school is correct, but incomplete. this esoteric pedantry finds a fine line between redundancy and contradiction in marx's later statements also;
<"in respect to the phenomenal form, “value and price of labour,” or “wages,” as contrasted with the essential relation manifested therein, viz., the value and price of labour-power, the same difference holds that holds in respect to all phenomena and their hidden substratum. [.] Classical Political Economy nearly touches the true relation of things, without, however, consciously formulating it. This it cannot, so long as it sticks in its bourgeois skin." [capital vol. 1, chapter 19]
this appears to contradict this:
<"by classical Political Economy, I understand that economy which, since the time of W. Petty, has investigated the real relations of production in bourgeois society in contradistinction to vulgar economy, which deals with appearances only" [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, footnote 33]
if to marx, to speak of "the value of labour" is to hold to mere phenomena, yet at once, value is conceived as "human labour", and the classical school deals in "real relations", then what is this "bourgeois skin" it fastens itself within? there is only one intelligible response by marx:
<"Even Adam Smith and Ricardo, the best representatives of the school, treat the form of value as a thing of no importance, as having no connection with the inherent nature of commodities [.] The value form of the product of labour is not only the most abstract, but is also the most universal form, taken by the product in bourgeois production, and stamps that production as a particular species of social production, and thereby gives it its special historical character. If then we treat this mode of production as one eternally fixed by Nature for every state of society, we necessarily overlook that which is the differentia specifica of the value form, and consequently of the commodity form, and of its further developments, money form, capital form, &c." [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, footnote 33]
the coherence of this is short-lived if we take comparison between marx's treatment of the value form and smith's. first we deal with the development of commodities in the first place. smith:
<"When the division of labour has been once thoroughly established, it is but a very small part of a man’s wants which the produce of his own labour can supply. He supplies the far greater part of them by exchanging that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men’s labour as he has occasion for […] One man, we shall suppose, has more of a certain commodity than he himself has occasion for, while another has less. The former consequently would be glad to dispose of, and the latter to purchase, a part of this superfluity." [wealth of nations, bk. 1 ch. 4]
this "superfluity" is once more recognised as an aspect of early trade for marx:
<"The first step made by an object of utility towards acquiring exchange-value is when it forms a non-use-value for its owner, and that happens when it forms a superfluous portion of some article required for his immediate wants." [capital vol. 1, ch. 2]
smith and marx both share an identical logic where it regards the creation of value therefore. we may read further also:
<"The truth of the proposition that, “although gold and silver are not by Nature money, money is by Nature gold and silver,” is shown by the fitness of the physical properties of these metals for the functions of money [.] the money commodity must be susceptible of merely quantitative differences, must therefore be divisible at will, and equally capable of being reunited. Gold and silver possess these properties by Nature." [capital vol. 1, ch. 2]
these are the exact same characteristics which adam smith also assigns to metals:
<"Metals can not only be kept with as little loss as any other commodity, scarce anything being less perishable than they are, but they can likewise, without any loss, be divided into any number of parts, as by fusion those parts can easily be reunited again; a quality which no other equally durable commodities possess, and which more than any other quality renders them fit to be the instruments of commerce and circulation." [wealth of nations, bk. 1, ch. 4]
where it pertains to the historical and social conditions of money, smith also provides us an empirical anthropology:
<"Salt is said to be the common instrument of commerce and exchanges in Abyssinia; a species of shells in some parts of the coast of India; dried cod at Newfoundland; tobacco in Virginia; sugar in some of our West India colonies; hides or dressed leather in some other countries; and there is at this day a village in Scotland where it is not uncommon, I am told, for a workman to carry nails instead of money to the baker’s shop or the alehouse." [wealth of nations, bk. 1, ch. 4]
i wish to make special comment upon this reference made by smith however:
<"The armour of Diomede, says Homer, cost only nine oxen; but that of Glaucus cost an hundred oxen" [wealth of nations, bk. 1, ch. 4]
this is an identical reference marx makes in the grundrisse:
<"Money appears as measure (in Homer, e.g. oxen)" [grundrisse, on money]
the derision given by marx against smith on the terms of historicity are then totally unfounded, since marx does not appear to disagree with smith's position, but on the contrary, appropriates it wherever he can. the "eternity" of relations are instead approached by marx rather than smith;
<"Aristotle therefore, himself, tells us what barred the way to his further analysis; it was the absence of any concept of value. What is that equal something, that common substance, which admits of the value of the beds being expressed by a house? […] human labour. The peculiar conditions of the society in which he lived, alone prevented him from discovering what, “in truth,” was at the bottom of this equality." [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, sct. 3]
here, marx sees value as an inherent relation of commodity exchange, even unbeknownst to those who participate in it. what is historically considered in the way that bourgeois economy disregards then? marx makes one comment:
<"Here, however, a task is set us, the performance of which has never yet even been attempted by bourgeois economy, the task of tracing the genesis of this money form, of developing the expression of value implied in the value relation of commodities, from its simplest, almost imperceptible outline, to the dazzling money-form." [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, sct. 3]
marx's view is identical to smith's however, as we have already seen. marx and smith both see how barter develops from a surplus, which leads to trade, and over time, a measure of value, in metals, are chosen to represent all social values. marx's comments then are either occulted, ignorant or deceptive - especially by comparison, where marx develops his system logically, rather than empirically. what then, is the strife between smith and marx, really? no one can seem to say - especially in the greater adoption of smith's conclusions in marx's system, such as the division of value between use and exchange, the measure of value being based in labour time, the notion of commodity money, the total value of a commodity entailing its cost of production, the revenues of production (wages, profits and rents) concording to the 3 major classes of society (workers, capitalists and landlords). marx also borrows from ricardo in the same way, as we may read:
<"Utility then is not the measure of exchangeable value, al-though it is absolutely essential to it. If a commodity were in no way useful,—in other words, if it could in no way con-tribute to our gratification,—it would be destitute of exchange-able value, however scarce it might be, or whatever quantity of labour might be necessary to procure it." [principles of political economy, ch. 1, sct. 1]
this is echoed by marx:
<"Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value." [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, sct. 1]
this then grants the market concept of value, held between use and exchange; its social co-constitution in buyer and seller. what then, is left of marx which isnt present in economic thinkers before him? the only thing marx seems to hold as his own is the two-fold character of labour:
<"I was the first to point out and to examine critically this two-fold nature of the labour contained in commodities." [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, sct. 2]
this bleeds into his criticism about ricardo, despite at once, granting ricardo the predication implied within the terms of labour's qualitative and quantitative aspect. marx then only seems to stand on the shoulders of giants, taunting that he is taller because of it. once more the question may be posed at so-called "marxists"; what is the criticism you give against smith and ricardo? there is either silence, deception, hysteria or idle politics - but there is hardly ever any proper reason.

okay, so why not marx? my position is that marx's "value form" dialectic makes his political economy stifled by an insistence upon commodity money, which in turn, embodies a value, rather than simply representing values. on money being a "symbol of value" he says this:
<"The fact that money can, in certain functions, be replaced by mere symbols of itself, gave rise to that other mistaken notion, that it is itself a mere symbol." [capital vol. 1, ch. 2]
on fiat (by decree) money, he says this:
<"Lawyers started long before economists the idea that money is a mere symbol, and that the value of the precious metals is purely imaginary. This they did in the sycophantic service of the crowned heads, supporting the right of the latter to debase the coinage, during the whole of the middle ages, by the traditions of the Roman Empire […] it was a maxim of the Roman Law that the value of money was fixed by decree of the emperor. It was expressly forbidden to treat money as a commodity [.] Some good work on this question has been done by G. F. Pagnini [.] in the second part of his work Pagnini directs his polemics especially against the lawyers." [capital vol. 1, ch. 2, footnote 11]
here, marx is incredibly disapproving, even citing the prohibition of treating money as a commodity. as far as it regards "paper money", marx also says this:
<"We allude here only to inconvertible paper money issued by the State and having compulsory circulation […] A law peculiar to the circulation of paper money can spring up only from the proportion in which that paper money represents gold […] Only in so far as paper money represents gold, which like all other commodities has value, is it a symbol of value" [capital vol. 1, ch. 3, sct. 2, part C.]
here, marx totally arrests money to a commodity, wherefrom it achieves its value form. this can be seen in contradistinction to smith's view that seashells may suffice as a medium of exchange. the larger issue of this for marx is that he sees the development of money from a single commodity as progressively developing into capital [M-C-M']. if we lack (commodity) money, we lack capital therefore, and so we no longer live in capital-ism. this dismantles marx's metaphysical project. the truth is that money is not a commodity, and never was - marx is mistaken from the beginning. marx's "value form" dialectic is hegelian hogwash, and unfortunately, this is what he bases his entire work on.

>>2298440
>as the smithposter (and coincidentally, the keynesposter), it seems that my input is largely complete in these threads, since the overarching dispute was resolved by an ultimate submission to the fact that marx's theory of value cannot supersede its classical origins
That's it? That's the last smithpost?

File: 1749133697329.png (1.33 MB, 860x1076, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2298440
I have one last question before you go … is this your livelihood? Like are you an economics major or something? Or is this just an area of immense hobbyist interest to you?

File: 1749136534913.jpeg (175.37 KB, 700x394, fetchimage.jpeg)

>>2298444
well, theres also this one :^)
my tenure here was conditioned by an original criticism i gave of marx's "gold standard" in the das kapital thread, which lead to endless debate and unraveling. it seems that the debate has ended, so my continued presence has also naturally expired itself.
>>2298453
yes, i just take this as a hobby interest. i am not professionally trained at all, but an an autodidact. if you encounter professional economists anyway, they dont seem to be terribly "educated" in the theory (as michael hudson would say) - since most things are divorced from primary sources, in academia in general. people can give you shorthand references, but can they give you citation? thats where i emphasise my own method, which is admittedly, a bit autistic, but it is at least honest. one thing i do enjoy in different marxist texts is the dialogical format which employs much citation and response. i think particularly of engels' "anti-duhring", which reads like a greentext reply. there is also an interesting drama narrated in the 1890 preface to capital vol. 1, where engels goes through an accusation given against marx's credibility by an anonymous author regarding an improper citation. marx ends up defending himself and the author vanishes - until after marx's death, where the accusation rises up again in petulant spite; building its foundation on the silence of the dead. engels discovers the source and defends his friend. i suppose i relate to marx in this way. i want to be right, but moreso, i want to be honest. thats why i try and back up the things i say, since its not just possible to lie to others, but very easy to lie to ourselves. i have spent years believing lies i chose to indulge in, but the truth has set me free. if i had a message, it would be to simply read primary sources.

>>2298440
> the truth is that money is not a commodity, and never was - marx is mistaken from the beginning. marx's "value form" dialectic is hegelian hogwash, and unfortunately, this is what he bases his entire work on.
wrong. money IS a commodity and the fact that you deny this in the 21st Century, the century of Blockchain and Cryptocurrencies, is asinine. We are literally seeing with our own eyes Money-As-Direct-Commodity even if you reject Fiat money as commodity (which is stupid but I am only conceding this point to point out that even if you choose this method you are still wrong).

>>2298511
>money IS a commodity
did you know that the face value of a penny is cheaper than its cost of production - leading to governments deciding to abandon penny production since it costs more than a penny to make a penny on aggregate? this seems contradictory, for how can a penny be worth more or less than its own material, unless it isnt its own material which set its value? by comparison, it costs less to produce £1 million than a penny in aggregate. does this make a penny more valuable than £1 million? if you are basing your view of money on commodity values, then you must say "yes", for metal is surely more valuable than paper. in what circumstances can something cheaper to make be more valuable? but lets give a more illuminating example. if i have a £100k car and £1 million in bank notes, which would you choose to possess? if you choose the money, you must surely say that there is more value… but where is the value? in the notes themselves? if not, then how can they be said to have value? if instead, it is the state which forces you to purchase items with money at the threat of imprisonment which makes notes circulate, does the state/society "create" value where none existed previously? no. you cannot create value out of thin air, surely. but you can raise prices. is this not the basic mechanism in place? if not, how do the bits in my bank account exchange for things beyond their cost? if i tried to buy groceries with pieces of paper they would throw me out, but if i paid with dollars, they accept it - whats the intrinsic difference? to you, its in the idea that they are simply different sorts of commodities, with different sorts of values. what gives dollars value?

File: 1749139014890-0.png (81.04 KB, 957x297, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1749139014890-1.png (96.78 KB, 684x313, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2298567
this was actually brought up in the first thread

Googling "is money commodity marxism" immediately debunks retarded smithposter

Btw hudson is a cia backed charlatan

>>2298587
>Btw hudson is a cia backed charlatan
is that one google away as well? if hudson is CIA why is he constantly on the Geopolitical Economy Report with Ben Norton, a show whose entire purpose is to shit talk the US led world order?

>>2298575
thats why people tell you to invest in gold and silver, yet its the investors who are selling you the gold and silver in the first place… keynes calls this "liquidity preference".
>>2298587
are you implying that marx didnt have a commodity theory of money? lets read:
<"The universal equivalent form is a form of value in general. It can, therefore, be assumed by any commodity [.] The particular commodity, with whose bodily form the equivalent form is thus socially identified, now becomes the money commodity, or serves as money [.] Gold is now money with reference to all other commodities only because it was previously, with reference to them, a simple commodity [.] The simple commodity form is therefore the germ of the money form." [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, sct. 3, part C-D]
<"It [money] thus serves as a universal measure of value. And only by virtue of this function does gold, the equivalent commodity par excellence, become money" [capital vol. 1, ch. 3, sct. 1]
or is this you? >>2298511
>money IS a commodity
either way, youre wrong.
>michael hudson is CIA
really? 🤣🤣 remember, hudson doesnt believe money is a commodity, the same as you - or do you believe money is a commodity after all? make your mind up.

>>2298602
Western "we're bad but everybody else is worse" type apologetic propaganda slop, same as orwell, western trots, etc.

Idiots making the same type of mistake as baby's first gotcha of mudpies: not understanding that A⊂B doesn't mean B⊂A

>>2298635
>Western "we're bad but everybody else is worse" type apologetic propaganda slop, same as orwell, western trots, etc.
Ben Norton literally lives in China and the constant theme on Geopolitical Economy Report, which Hudson constantly contributes to, is that the West is suicidially imperialist and a threat to the entire Earth. So I don't buy this line at all.

>>2298653
bro had the set theory unicode ready

>>2298653
talking to yourself?

>>2298665
I don't know if ben norton is well intentioned or not, but he doesn't have the best track record when it comes to working with ractionaries who position themselves as critics of america.

https://michael-hudson.com/2018/08/life-thought-an-autobiography/

His own autobiography is full of admissions of having worked with the CIA, he glows like the sun
Hudsonism is just reheated proudhonism = industrialist fascism = patsoc = strasserism

>>2298715
>Did you know Engels was Bourgeois
level of critique

>>2298715
make sure you remind everyone that he was trotskkky's godson too

>>2298725
Did engels ever work for Preußische Geheimpolizei?

new thread, oldfriends
>>2298757

>>2298715
>Michael Hudson: Here's an example from my life 58 years ago of how conniving and imperialist America is which directly inspired me to write my famous book about US imperialism and to spend the rest of my life talking about US imperialism and capitalism

<You: This means he was a CIA agent then and is one now


Neither assertion is being proven here. All I see is complaining that he disclosed something bad the US government did. Whene he talks on GER with Radikha Desai they're always talking about the US empire. The way they talk about the Ukraine war, about Taiwan, about Israel, about Russia, about NATO, all of it is exactly the opposite of how CIA-cutout media talks about these things.

>>2298795
But it's exactly how patsocs and larouchites etc. talk , and they're undeniably a CIA OP

>>2298817
>Geopolitical Economy Report is Pastoc/Larouchite
no because they don't rant about "le gays are imperialism" and they don't shit on the US left. take your meds. Anyone with two brain cells can see the difference between Ben Norton and someone like Haz Al Din (who btw hates Ben Norton for calling Dugin reactionary)

File: 1749156833620.png (393.6 KB, 737x839, ClipboardImage.png)


>>2298911
But they do host someone who keeps talking about "evil, bloodsucking financiers vs noble, productive industrialists. btw marx and engels were wrong about everything".
Anyone with half a brain knows what his angle is, only idiot western "leftists" fall for it.

I have yet to see any actual convincing proof of first world proletariat exploiting the third world.

If anything, outsourcing and offshoring has worsened the economic outcomes of first-world proletariat. It has increased the amount of laborers they need to compete with.

Also regarding R&D and marketing, these were harder to outsource due to lack of skills, technical ability, cultural knowledge etc that third-world workers lacked. But a lot of those are being outsourced now as well. Like design engineering or marketing BPO firms working in India etc.

And immigration from poor countries also hurts wages in 1st world, unless its very specific high-skill immigration, but those are like <10% of immigrants in most 1st world countries.

Third-worldism has no Marxist economic scientific leg to stand on.

Btw I'm specifically taking about the first world proletariat. Obviously the 1st world capitalist class benefits from higher rates of exploitation, lower wages, less regulation, worse conditions. But that just increases the reason for 1st world and 3rd world proles to collaborate.

>>2299144
>evil, bloodsucking financiers vs noble, productive industrialists. btw marx and engels were wrong about everything
is this supposed to be a characterization of hudson? provide even a crumb of proof for this ridiculous claim

>>2298440
>it seems that my input is largely complete in these threads, since the overarching dispute was resolved by an ultimate submission to the fact that marx's theory of value cannot supersede its classical origins
Just like when I'm at a party standing in the corner talking until everybody leaves, I'm winning the party!

>>2298611
>are you implying that marx didnt have a commodity theory of money
didn't they say the opposite? of course it is a commodity, but you don't think that you think its gold

>>2299373
>I have yet to see any actual convincing proof of first world proletariat exploiting the third world.
things exactly zero people claim
> Obviously the 1st world capitalist class benefits from higher rates of exploitation
oh wow thats exactly what people do claim.

now look up labor aristocracy

I want to learn economics, but i know i can't learn about the real economy from mainstream economics. This is why I, an ignorant, humbly ask of you people, who are wiser, to provide me some kind of non-bourgeoise manual for the foundations, or some kind of bibliography, and I'll truly bless you in my heart, comrades, i am completely lost in this subject. Some general guidance is also okay. I appreciate the youtube videos, but i like more to read, I am more used to seriousrly learn by studying a book and everyone who really wants to learn eventually must turn to them anyways. I see the bibliograpy also, but i feel like im too stupid to get into smith, ricardo and marx directly, as if i needed some context, but maybe im wrong, is that the first things i should read?

Stay strong and thank you very much for the attention!!!


Unique IPs: 19

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]