/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2289539
Really Cockshott doesn't go far enough tbh because he doesn't consider non-labor time as a variable in production. For example it takes the dough to make bread about an hour or an hour and a half to rise. I'd be interested in how this could be applied to his econophysics, especially with markets as indicators for the production of consumer goods.

>>2289062
Depends. An input-output matrix shows the direct relations in horizontal and vertical lines and for indirect inputs and indirect outputs your eyeballs have to ping-pong around in the matrix. The matrix is always about a time interval. You can abstract away some inputs. Just like when you are working with a recipe in a kitchen, the recipe doesn't state the tools. If you are thinking short term and considering only a modest increase in output, you can use the matrix and these simplifications are unlikely to cause much of a problem. More intensive use of unaccounted resources is not much of an issue if the intensity increases only a bit. But with planning for longer and longer terms, invisible givens have to be turned into visible givens, and some tools have to be treated as ingredients (and tools for making tools). Also, even for the short term it is true that if you plan for a massive increase, you have to do something about your tools (and tools for making tools).

>>2289539
>My understanding is that deterioration is 'baked in' to the input based on the expected lifetime of machinery. For example if a machine is expected to bake a billion loaves of bread before it craps out, then the input for that loaf of bread is one-billionth of that machine.
Yes.

>>2289711
>Really Cockshott doesn't go far enough tbh because he doesn't consider non-labor time as a variable in production.
I'm pretty sure he does, but his toy models I know of do not. The standard example of the classical economists is wine. Time dependencies in production are displayed with modified Gantt charts and the like, showing how long something is supposed to take with bars. The bars of processes that have to happen one after another link up and form longer paths, the longest of these is called the Critical Path. Since this sort of analysis is not only common in business, but also in computer science, he must know about it.

>>2289843
I know he has referenced Mechanization Takes Command by Giedion in a video(?), which talks about the use of baking soda and pressurized chambers to accelerate the time needed to transform dough but I can't recall Cockshott ever talking about Gantt's work. Maybe Beer speaks to it and Cockshott treats it as a given? I haven't read him yet.

>>2289711
RHP allows dealing with such things, for example that you have to plant in spring and harvest in autumn
https://github.com/lokehagberg/rhp

Could you walk me though why does labour credit have expiration period? The reasoning as I understand it seem to be to avoid wasteful production of consumer products that nobody actually wishes to buy at a given moment, but if they put labour credit into bank it signals their willingness to put off consumption and as such resources can be redeployed elsewhere. But considering that we have data on the consumption patterns of population, cant we just make prediction on required output of consumer goods based on them? Making people put their labour credits does not give us any more signals about consumer spending than we already have, does it?

>>2291513
>Could you walk me though why does labour credit have expiration period? The reasoning as I understand it seem to be to avoid wasteful production of consumer products
Yes.
>But considering that we have data on the consumption patterns of population, cant we just make prediction on required output of consumer goods based on them?
We don't either have all relevant data or none. We have some data and can predict things somewhat. We tackle the problem from two sides, we don't just try to get better at dealing with the variability, we also reduce the variability.

We don't want high randomness in how much people spent in a given week. Expiration dates for the vouchers are one way of doing that. A variant of that idea which has been mentioned in the cybercom threads is publishing dates for consumer items and each electronic consumption point having validity for items dated up to a certain date*. IMHO that feels much nicer, because you have basically the same effect that people are urged to use their old vouchers and yet the vouchers feel more stable than expiring vouchers. When it's not the old voucher annoyingly expiring, but the old consumer items which disappear, people intuitively understand that this is the way of physical things and not some totally arbitrary policy by the government.

*There is no limit in the other time direction, so a consumption point is never too fresh for an old consumer item, and so the (banal and automated) strategy for choosing between more and less fresh consumption points for obtaining an item is to use the oldest points still valid for the item in question.

>>2291738
this sounds interesting and I think I missed that old discussion. do you mind elaborating?

>>2269981
He was (is?) in Solidarity Scotland.

>>2291747
https://archive.is/jXivP
See comment No. 2204204 (which combines publishing dates with something else, but these ideas can be discussed separately).

Logically, it doesn't look like there is a need for ever-lasting (pseudo-)money. Is there really much of a need for saving up under socialism? People will have guaranteed pensions. Expensive things can be rented or paid over several installments. We might do away with the very concept of buying a house. Living space might be assigned by a completely distinct procedure unrelated to consumer budgets, but on the basis of personal needs (living with or without children, disabilities…) and location of the workplace.

But psychologically… People are used to having money they can hoard. There is still inflation of course, but inflation is less drastic than expiring. We have to think of how people come into the new society with plenty of old memories and expectations. I am sure expiring consumer budgets would be very unpopular. (Maybe people can tolerate expiring-points regulation if there are also a few non-expiring points for everybody; imagine these rewarded special feats and also everybody getting wired a few each birthday, coming straight from the world government.)

I can't actually imagine the variant with publishing dates being really that popular either, but it would probably be hated less. This variant has a matter-of-factness to it: Here is the old stuff still in storage, this means there are people out there who have the necessary consumption points and aren't making use of them.

>>2293455 (me)
>This variant has a matter-of-factness to it: Here is the old stuff still in storage, this means there are people out there who have the necessary consumption points and aren't making use of them.
And if one doesn't particularly like what's in the ever-shrinking pile of old things, who is to blame? Should have used the old-stuff points earlier then.

The expiring vouchers VS publishing dates is very much like something we are all familiar with: There are shopping vouchers and there are tickets for specific events. When a shopping voucher expires I get mad. Those bastards make the voucher expire so early! When an event goes by and I don't use my ticket, I don't get mad as much because I don't speculate about some evil intent, I know somebody made a mistake, and it is somebody I can't be mad at for long. With the publishing dates the voucher does not evaporate, but over time this or that opportunity for getting this or that item evaporates, because I let the opportunities evaporate.

>>2293474
The issue I see with that is that it incentivises unneccesary consumption. Like the the whole point of having wages in the first place is restricting personal consumption, letting people save their "money" is preferable to forcing them to buy shit thry dont want.

>>2295521
What not wanting something means in this context is relative. In capitalism, the decision to not spend money and to hoard instead does not require the specific decision about what to use the money for in the future, and even when one makes such a specific decision, one not necessarily communicates it to anyone who could make use of that information.

Expiring play money gives people a bit more of an incentive to use it. Really forcing people to use expiring play money would not leave the option to just let the play money expire.

But let's suppose for the sake of argument a society that produces a pile of items and the people have to fill out forms about what they want from the pile and an almighty algorithm forces everyone to use up all their play money for a full assignment of usage rights over all the items in the pile. I don't see any problem with that as long as I don't have to take the item and don't have to take care of disposal myself. An assignment of usage rights is not the same as physical possession. (And even forced physical possession would not be quite the same as forced consumption.)

I don't feel forced to consume something when it is available at a price of zero. Expiring play money can put you into a situation that is kinda like that, and the similarity is stronger still with the publishing dates variant.

>>2296196
There are two problems:
1. In this system people will try to use up all their money, so in order to not cause shortages, you need to produce equal to the money supply. However if you let people save, and lets say you have statistics that people put 10% of their paycheck into their long term savings account, you can reduce the production of consumer items by 10%, and reallocate those resources and labour somewhere else.
2. It sends a bad message. You are creating undesirable psychological and cultural attitudes by punishing people for frugality. Imagine this mindset being applied to running an enterprise, where employees are actively trying to use up all their inputs regardless of necessity.

>>2296551
>if you let people save, and lets say you have statistics that people put 10% of their paycheck into their long term savings account, you can reduce the production of consumer items by 10%, and reallocate those resources and labour somewhere else.
Yeah, but in socialism we are making the administrative decision to consciously commit at an early planning stage to a particular split between consumption and building up the means of production. The more spontaneous the hoarding VS spending decisions are, the less useful they are for planning things together.

>It sends a bad message. You are creating undesirable psychological and cultural attitudes by punishing people for frugality.
I think frugality under socialism is a sort of mental illness so I agree with sending that "punishment" (which I don't see as such, rather than the absence of reward).
>Imagine this mindset being applied to running an enterprise, where employees are actively trying to use up all their inputs regardless of necessity.
Expiring consumption vouchers just expire, they don't really force you to obtain things. And whether anything like expiring input vouchers would be used is a distinct question from using expiring consumption vouchers.

Been thinking a bit more about how to get a square matrix.

Suppose there are several recipes with physical units for making the same output.

First thinking without joint production: For each of the inputs, we note the lowest number among these recipes (might well be zero). Now we only have one pseudo-recipe for the output. We call the result the optimist's physical matrix. For each of the inputs, we note the highest number among these recipes. Now we only have one pseudo-recipe for the output. We call the result the pessimist's physical matrix.

Now to joint production: Perhaps this is easier to communicate when talking about this "financially". The products coming out of a joint process have to justify their production cost together. That means their sum of prices must yield a certain amount together, but this can be split between these products in any way as long as the amount they have to make together is met. We can think in extremes: The price may be entirely covered by one of the joint outputs with the other outputs being free. Only one of the outputs being entirely "responsible" for the physical joint process is then used for the pessimistic look at this output; and assuming another output takes full responsibility makes this output look like coming out of nothing.

With this procedure we get two matrix things and both are square ones.

Empirical square matrix:

Multiple recipes for making the same output are used in one empirically observed proportion. That's just one big empirical recipe.

Joint production: The products fetch prices. The price×quantity of each of these is used to account for each input of the joint recipe between these products in exactly these proportions.

>>2274847
>the God of Logos
Is that the God who made all the corporate logos? A God of commercial arts? Yeesh

>>2296551
you could also send the vouchers towards an artistic endeavor you enjoy without wanting anything specific in return (given most art would be freely reproducible). Hoarding your vouchers shouldnt be encouraged, the whole point is that the production correspond to people wants and needs, and you need people to spend them for that.

Remember Dissent on Mars? The game was mentioned in a 2023 thread as being in development: https://archive.ph/Afx5a The game is out now and there is an INDEP vid about it on Youtube (and an extremely negative review by MiAh The King). It seems like a sandbox of sandboxes. You set up property rights and other regulations as well as psychological parameters to simulate different economic systems.

>>2297068
this is worse than just using an LP solver. much worse
>That means their sum of prices must yield a certain amount together
why is it that so many people that are supposedly pro-planning are still value cucks? why is it so hard to understand that planning is all about elaborating on the economy in physical terms? if you want to do things in terms of abstract labor then you go to the market. read Neurath, I beg you

>>2324099
>why is it so hard to understand that planning is all about elaborating on the economy in physical terms?
If the three square matrices as described in >>2297068 are applied to an economy without joint production, they are all in physical terms. If you want to make a square matrix and there is joint production, then you have to come up with an accounting procedure for splitting up production into non-joint pseudo-processes.

Even if you don't care about getting a square matrix, the burdens of production have to be justified by the useful effects. So for joint production, the outputs together have to justify their burdens. This is true independent of whether they are markets or not. The outputs will be evaluated in some form and spooky counterfactual accounting will have to be used for linking specific benefits to shares of burdens. There is no way around this, really. At best we can emphasize the joint nature.

>if you want to do things in terms of abstract labor then you go to the market.
As long as there is labor discipline, you can use abstract labor in accounting and planning, with or without a market.

>read Neurath
I have read several thousand pages of Neurath without encountering a single algorithm. He actually had no idea how to do planning in kind.

>>2322089
the game looked pretty jank when I played the demo but I don't really trust this guy's opinions

>>2324970
Why not reply with an actual proposal by Neurath. Or do you not know any. How could that be.

>>2289711
fermentation of cheese and wine too. hell the peppers in tabasco sauce are fermented in wood kegs for 3 years

>>2326836
The article by Thomas Uebel was already discussed in an older thread: https://archive.is/jXivP in comment No. 1943092. Uebel is making the same point about Neurath not knowing how to actually do planning in kind.
<…it appears that his strong in-kind calculability assumption traded on the future achievement of a research program called “calculation in kind.”

>>2326962
yeah? the USSR amounts to such a research project

>>2327710
this videos two years old?

>>2324545
>As long as there is labor discipline, you can use abstract labor in accounting and planning, with or without a market.
Addendum: And even something like equal labor discipline across workplaces is not necessary. As long as we have good estimates of how people are doing in different places relative to a standard we are good.

>>2327249
Not really, no. Developing plans for ever completely replacing one-dimensional accounting (for that's what Uebel means by strong in-kind calculability) was never a mainstream position among soviet economists. They may have paid lip service to the idea, but only for a future period beyond what they concerned themselves with.

For anyone who can read German, you might want to check out Die Wirtschaftsrechnung in der sozialistischen Gesellschaft by Otto Leichter (1923) for a sensible if boring take on socialism. (Except for this bit: He wants to give higher remuneration to educated people, because he doesn't think much of education in terms of society providing it, but mostly as an achievement and sacrifice of the individual.)

He mentions a certain Tschajanow (that's how the Russian name looks in German) as a guy among the very tiny pro in-kind crowd in the USSR. Leichter describes Tschajanow's proposal for agriculture, which is far more concrete than anything by Neurath. It requires people coming up with tons of standards for judgments and evaluations and then we can do marginally-productivity analysis with physical inputs. Tschajanow claims that this is THE solution for organizing a socialist economy. But Leichter points out it's really something for comparisons at a place or at most within an industry and not an approach for the economy as a whole.

>>2333305
I assume you mean this paper: https://raetekommunismus.de/Texte%20Grundprinzipien/Grundprinzipien%20Wirtschaftsrechnung%20Leichter.pdf
Firefox did a pretty bad job at translating it, but it seems it's just a whole lot of waffle
I am aware that the USSR cucked to value, that it often just "planned" things in rubels, especially in sector B. I am also aware that Neurath never did do an entire economy in kind, since the computational power to do that simply did not exist in his lifetime. that's beside the point. what I am reacting to is this endless flood of "proposals" that amount to just changing the name of the currency and calling that planning. how are these proposals, where each product is stamped with a price in terms of labor, where each workplace purchases products from eachother, not just market socialism? the notion that workplaces can plan in isolation and arrive at good regulation, that production anarchy is good actually, is completely at odds with Capital, and at odds with modern cybernetics
>Tschajanow
do you mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Chayanov ?

>>2334356
>I assume you mean this paper
You should know from the first sentence that this is a small excerpt of a bigger work. Here is a shitty scan.
>I am also aware that Neurath never did do an entire economy in kind, since the computational power to do that simply did not exist in his lifetime.
It wasn't a lack of computational power. Neurath did not know how to do it, he just had a feeling it's possible.
>what I am reacting to is this endless flood of "proposals" that amount to just changing the name of the currency and calling that planning.
If you follow the way Marx and Engels wrote, labor vouchers as proposed in TANS are not money. And while places like the GDR did not literally implement this since people could give cash to other people, there was no capitalist money circuit. The split between investment and consumption was set by administrative fiat. The problem was the opposite of what you are complaining about: They did something very different from capitalism, but lacked the language to express it and stuck to capitalist terms like money and profit, terms that only in some longer texts had the proper qualifications added. And this lack of clear short terms made it easier for revisionist changes: 'What's the big deal with a bit more private initiative if we are already doing profit and money accounting, my fellow comrades?'

>how are these proposals, where each product is stamped with a price in terms of labor, where each workplace purchases products from eachother, not just market socialism?
Cockshott and Cottrell do not propose workplaces purchasing their own means of production. The means of production are pooled together and everything is one big "company". Likewise, Leichter refers to big trusts under capitalism as a reference point and he says everything would be a big trust. According to Marx (as well as common sense), the allocation process within a company is not a market. Hence, if you follow Marx you cannot argue that resemblance between a proposal for socialism and the internal accounting of a capitalist firm is evidence of it being a proposal for doing rebranded capitalism!

>the notion that workplaces can plan in isolation and arrive at good regulation, that production anarchy is good actually
Such a claim is neither in TANS nor in Leichter's proposal.

>do you mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Chayanov ?
That must be him, yes.

>>2338732
>It wasn't a lack of computational power. Neurath did not know how to do it, he just had a feeling it's possible.
right. but Gosplan was perfectly capable of doing it, if only for a very limited subset of the economy. we know that we can do it for a much larger set these days. whether it can be done for the entire world economy is an open question
>If you follow the way Marx and Engels wrote, labor vouchers as proposed in TANS are not money. And while places like the GDR did not literally implement this since people could give cash to other people, there was no capitalist money circuit. The split between investment and consumption was set by administrative fiat. The problem was the opposite of what you are complaining about: They did something very different from capitalism, but lacked the language to express it and stuck to capitalist terms like money and profit, terms that only in some longer texts had the proper qualifications added. And this lack of clear short terms made it easier for revisionist changes: 'What's the big deal with a bit more private initiative if we are already doing profit and money accounting, my fellow comrades?'
fair point. and yes I know that it's not money, but it's still exchange. exchange-value is a more general concept that applies to more than just money. what I am complaining about are proposals that amount to workplaces exchanging products with each other, without a global centralized plan. to me this seems like it cannot result in anything other that a reconstitution of private property. we cannot permit workplaces to go against the will of the entire class. we must struggle against the notion that reducing all the qualitative properties of each use-value down to a single number, a price, is somehow a good thing rather than a bad thing
>Such a claim is neither in TANS nor in Leichter's proposal
I'm not replying to C&C or Leichter, but to anon >>2297068
I'll see if I can do something with the scan when I have better internets, thanks

>>2338732
> I. The problem of accounting in business . 7 1. The problem of accounting in business . All economics goesvonderTatsache,thatpeople recurring Silent needs and with have to budget a stock of elaborated goods. The goods , the were created in a production period are consumed and the recurring Needs necessary the human to a new production period , so that the whole economic life of man other than a Cycle of Production and Consumption is . Any creation of goods intended to shut down from need nissen serve , and with it every satisfaction of need nissen has certain expenditures of labour-power and factual production requirements , which in turn Results the application of labour-power are to Prere . Any satisfaction of needs is not only with a certain suffering of work , but also with the devotion of know goods purchased , which means impoverishment. The Economics has coined the term costs for this and really these costs are d . h . the fact that to everyone Needs satisfaction certain Expenses necessary are , maybe the only common Characteristic all economics shape started from the economy of primitives to Communist Economy of the highest order . The Re production of daily wear-out life force , recovery the daily the basis walking or in the verse consummate Goods caused continuously Costs . When Life to become bearable for the person, then must the cost of living If possible, if possible be low , d . h . the working sufferer and other expenses , by the he the satisfaction of his needs allowed in the Ver equal to the satisfaction caused by the satisfaction of needs not to the immeasurable grow. The farmer People must therefore seek, effort and goal , costs and being Poor satisfaction into a tolerable harmony to bring
yeah I'm not reading 108 pages of Gerlish

new 'ock'ott
>Critique of neo Kautskyism

Victor Magariño put put a planning related video
>Socialism and Central Planning Debate with @boredk

>>2347225
Each are arguing like playing both defense lawyer and judge acting out two different criminal cases.

Victor Magariño: I'm doing the defense of socialism. Socialism is innocent until proven guilty, so if you don't prove its guilt, socialism wins. I'm also the judge here and I decide what is convincing evidence and what is not.

boredk: I'm doing the defense of capitalism. Capitalism is innocent until proven guilty, so if you don't prove its guilt, capitalism wins. I'm also the judge here and I decide what is convincing evidence and what is not.

boredk is repeatedly making an extremely stupid argument: "NO COSTS ATTACHED!!" He claims markets attach costs to expressing wishes, and if you do a survey people will just state they want infinite apples…

First of, people can have individual consumer budgets even if the means of production are all in the hands of one big pseudo-firm, so how is that a killer argument for private ownership of the means of production?

And since changing the income distribution will change the demand data, how can you put so much faith in just market-demand data?

And of course we can limit expressions in surveys to what's technically possible and nerf exaggerations by the way we count them. When you do a survey about how many pencils and apples to produce, you could ask people for the ratio between these rather than absolute amounts. And here is an algo proposed years ago for assigning quantities of a produced pile of a thing: https://pastebin.com/bPyr7Vau Try and see what happens when a person is honest, gets fewer units than he wanted, and then replace his honest input with an exaggeration and repeat the calculation.

boredk is a programmer. If markets are so great, why does computer science even exist? Wouldn't all computing problems just boil down to something you could put in a short booklet. Here's the preferences for your agents. They all participate in a virtual auction. The end.

>>2347703
Kill Austrians. Behead Austrians. etc etc
Victor could have said "just measure it" to boredk's incessant "how 2 find demand???" and he'd have saved everyone several hours. Victor also seems to think there would be people whose job is "planner" and that there would be a "central planning board". he doesn't seem to have advanced past 1920 on this issue. there's also this inability to separate paying for things in distribution and paying for things in production. the two are very different

>>2347703
TL;DR: shallow and pedantic

The Critique of the Gotha Programme is wrong!
Workers can get back their full contribution as income!

The draft of the Gotha Programme said that "…the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society". Marx claimed this to be impossible. The published Gotha Programme does not this statement anymore. But was it logically necessary to yeet that statement? Was Marx right that there must be deductions?

Here is what Marx did not like about the bit with undiminished proceeds:
<Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

<From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

<These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

<There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

<Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

We might be able to define contribution in marginalist terms. Marginal contribution is a very brittle concept because depending on what time horizon we are thinking in, different things are fixed and fluid, and so our measure changes. Moreover, once we have settled on our accounting norms for measuring the marginal physical output, we can still set the selling price in this or that way, resulting in changing the marginal monetary output of the same action. And what's the marginal contribution to somebody's utility is still another question. We can set the marginal contribution as relative to some expectation value and call anything falling short of that a loss caused by the less-than-perfect person being there and preventing a better person from doing that task perfectly. It seems to me there is so much wiggle room with marginalism that we can define anybody's marginalist contribution to be as small as we want. Playing this definition game is one way of giving everybody back their whole contribution. But let's do something else.

Of course, people can donate and that is not a forced deduction. Of course, joining a voluntary insurance scheme is not a forced deduction either. But there is more: THE KETCHUP ARGUMENT. For this, we will first look at a a seemingly off-topic scenario and then draw our conclusion.

Consider a company that sells sausages. The company promises to not raise sausage prices for the next twelve months. Six months later, a customer complaints: He always eats the sausages with a special ketchup, and this ketchup got more expensive. Well, ketchup getting more expensive might be a reason to be sad, but this does not mean that the sausage company broke its promise about its sausages (even if the same company is also the only one selling this ketchup).

Now consider the following. Imagine you live in a society that promises its citizens this: Doing an hour of labor enables you to buy an hour of labor, without the qualifier "after deductions". You check for the so-called "labor-minute price" of a pretzel you bought. There is a public database about cost accounting in production that clearly shows that natural resources have positive fictional labor minutes assigned already before the factual labor time gets added to that. Well, that might be a reason to be sad, but you doing an hour of dog-sitting does indeed enable you to buy a full hour of another person dog-sitting for you. So, is society really breaking its promise? You might be sad that giving one hour does not get you one hour plus some other stuff (resource inputs), but that was not the promise. The promise was: You can get one hour for giving one hour. That promise is kept.

And so, with green taxes for resources like land, we do have our funds for stuff without taxing labor. In conclusion, Marx was wrong. Dog-sitters of the world, unite!

>>2348685
Wrong. Read https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch37.htm

>>2348697
Not written by Marx and that section you linked does not even refer to Marx. I don't believe you have fully read the post before writing your phony reply.

>>2348712
Marx never lived to see a complete proletarian State. Therefore Marx has nothing of cognitive value to say about such thing from materialist point of view. Proletarian State textbooks clairify your issue

>>2348725
Post >>2348685 is against a specific claim by Marx. Whether you try to support Marx in this or the post against the claim, it does not make sense to link https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch37.htm since it does not make a statement about the claim. If you don't care about what Marx said, there is no point in replying at all.

>>2348831
Marxism is not Karl Marx Thought

>>2348831
his refutation of Marx's claim is refuted within www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch37.htm
his farcical take on socialist value distribution can be corrected by reading that chapter

>>2349133
>Marxism is not Karl Marx Thought
Post >>2348685 is explicitly about a statement by Karl Marx and not somebody or something named "Karl Marx Thought".

>>2349152
>take on socialist value distribution can be corrected by reading that chapter
There is no conflict whatsoever between post >>2348685 and that chapter, hence the chapter cannot be a correction of the post nor vice versa. The entire point of that post is about a logical compatibility that Marx believed to not exist. The chapter posted makes no statement for or against its existence.

New Big Dick Vic MAGA-RINO

>>2351815
already posted >>2347225