[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ 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: 1749144359455-0.png (3.06 MB, 1274x2413, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1749144359455-1.png (429.48 KB, 1796x1391, ClipboardImage.png)

 

Previous thread: >>2189753

Links:

Previous Thread Archives
Thread 1 https://archive.ph/ROnpO
Thread 2 https://archive.ph/f29Po

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
Capital Volume 1 high quality audiobook from Andrew S. Rightenburg (Human-Read, not AI voice or TTS voice)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUjbFtkcDBlSHVigHHx_wjaeWmDN2W-h8
Capital Volume 2 high quality audiobook from Andrew S. Rightenburg (Human-Read, not AI voice or TTS voice)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUjbFtkcDBlSxnp8uR2kshvhG-5kzrjdQ
Capital Volume 3 high quality audiobook from Andrew S. Rightenburg (Human-Read, not AI voice or TTS voice)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUjbFtkcDBlRoV5CVoc5yyYL4nMO9ZJzO
Theories of Surplus Value high quality audiobook from Andrew S. Rightenburg (Human-Read, not AI voice or TTS voice)
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 (someone says "he's CIA doing reheated Proudhonism" lol)
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
(The Critique Of) Political Economy After Marx's Death
https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/postmarx.htm
326 posts and 111 image replies omitted.

>>2403149
so it wasn't money printing and you agree it was American shenanigans causing the inflation thanks

>>2403153
its money printing in relation to the rate of production, as i have stated many times - thats why USD can afford a cumulative price increase of about 1,700% over 80 years, since real prices have fallen approximately 1,100%. so its an inverse ratio: USD is 17 less valuable, yet wages purchase 11 times more. this is nominal versus real value in the economy.

>>2402391
>Normie economists believe that a currency collapse after war or natural disaster is because production collapsed.
>>2402985
>the great depression was prolonged by
*record scratch*
How is it possible for somebody from this planet to read that scenario as being about the Great Depression?

>>2403202
the great depression was largely caused by bank runs where fractional bank reserves were emptied out and so all the money vanished. it was largely a monetary phenomenon. no money then meant no consumption, and so a declined productive capability. thats why the new deal was largely oriented around redistribution, to stimulate the economy, with keynes as advisor. during the great recession of 2008, there was a quicker recovery since you can just print money.

>>2403202
>Normie economists believe that a currency collapse after war or natural disaster is because production collapsed. Patrick believes that it must mean the government is printing money like crazy.
>Who is right?
>>2402985
>the great depression was prolonged by…
>>2403213
>How is it possible for somebody from this planet to read that scenario as being about the Great Depression?
>>2403213
>the great depression was…
Are you having a stroke?

>>2403149
would you say that forcing others to participate in humiliating you for your own sexual gratification without their consent is in line with the categorical imperative?

File: 1753524603995.png (598.54 KB, 1000x1000, nvo2lfybcg571.png)

>>2403725
well, the categorical imperative is about uniting freedom and necessity in the notion of duty, which is a free act which must nonetheless be performed; in this, man becomes an end in-himself (many misinterpret kant as being an unconditional humanist in this respect, but he clearly stipulates that only the ethical man is an end in-himself, as he writes in "prologemena to any future metaphysics").

the use of force against another would violate the categorical imperative, since kant further stipulates the moral law as individually granted and voluntary - so involuntary activity would be unethical, since this would be a means to an end rather than an end in-itself. a reasonable creature can only be granted his own freedom from his self-possession (what can be related to aristotle's notion of αὐτάρκεια) - while an irrational creature is a natural slave (δούλος). this then makes them conditional, rather than unconditional being. we arrest criminals because they lose reason, for example - so this is where force is granted; as a condition against the self-enslaved, thus.

the contingency of evil can also be understood as improperly partaking in the good - such that kant understands that "diabolical evil" (evil as an end in-itself) is impossible. if we extrapolate from evil then, we can apply a speculative imperative toward its own ends; if everyone stole, where would we be? if everyone lied of murdered or raped, what would the world look like? etc. this is why evil is purely conditional. marquis de sade of course counters kant's notion by taking evil as an end in-itself. todd mcgowan also says that modern subjectivity allows for the possibility of unconditional evil, but i disagree, since even the most evil man still strives to preserve himself. this is practical reason, in effect.

File: 1753556957570.jpg (165.51 KB, 1920x1080, murray_rothbard.jpg)

in his article "confiscation and the homestead principle" [1969], murray rothbard, following the "homestead principle" (what in lockean terms is "appropriation" by labour), comes to some interesting conclusions, such as advocating for common ownership of land, worker ownership of factories and even racial reparations:
https://panarchy.org/rothbard/confiscation.html
he begins thusly,
<"The principle in the Communist countries should be: land to the peasants and the factories to the workers, thereby getting the property out of the hands of the State and into private, homesteading hands. The homesteading principle means that the way that unowned property gets into private ownership is by the principle that this property justly belongs to the person who finds, occupies, and transforms it by his labor."
he sees the reappropriation of property (or the expropriation of expropriators) as an imperative aspect of this right of labour:
<"any property in the hands of the State is in the hands of thieves, and should be liberated as quickly as possible. Any person or group who liberates such property, who confiscates or appropriates it from the State, is performing a virtuous act and a signal service to the cause of liberty."
the question then arises, who is granted the right of the homesteaded property?
<"Take, for example, the State universities. This is property built on funds stolen from the taxpayers. Since the State has not found or put into effect a way of returning ownership of this property to the taxpaying public, the proper owners of this university are the “homesteaders”, those who have already been using and therefore “mixing their labor” with the facilities [.] This means student and/or faculty ownership of the universities."
rothbard here directly states that property should belong to those who use it. he continues, stating that any entity which has government funding rightfully belongs to the public, since they pay for it:
<"Columbia University, for example, which receives nearly two-thirds of its income from government, is only a “private” college in the most ironic sense. It deserves a similar fate of virtuous homesteading confiscation […] But we must face the fact that it might prove the most practical route to first nationalize the property as a prelude to redistribution."
after this, he begins to discuss slavery:
<"[in russia, 1861] The land should have gone to the serfs themselves, for under the homestead principle they had tilled the land and deserved its title. Furthermore, the serfs were entitled to a host of reparations from their masters for the centuries of oppression and exploitation. The fact that the land remained in the hands of the lords paved the way inexorably for the Bolshevik Revolution, since the revolution that had freed the serfs remained unfinished."
rothbard is making striking remarks; that the bolsheviks were rectifying an historical exploitation, which should have been resolved by reparations from feudal lords. he then makes extrapolation to the negro slaves of the US, citing contemporary issues as directly causal to their lack of compensation from slavery:
<"The same is true of the abolition of slavery in the United States. The slaves gained their freedom, it is true, but the land, the plantations that they had tilled and therefore deserved to own under the homestead principle, remained in the hands of their former masters. Furthermore, no reparations were granted the slaves for their oppression out of the hides of their masters. Hence the abolition of slavery remained unfinished, and the seeds of a new revolt have remained to intensify to the present day. Hence, the great importance of the shift in Negro demands from greater welfare handouts to “reparations”, reparations for the years of slavery and exploitation and for the failure to grant the Negroes their land, the failure to heed the Radical abolitionist’s call for “40 acres and a mule” to the former slaves. In many cases, moreover, the old plantations and the heirs and descendants of the former slaves can be identified, and the reparations can become highly specific indeed."
rothbard does not blame the negro for his own plight thus, but sees his struggle as one responding to historical inequalities (such as what led to the bolshevik revolution, but which should be solved by other means). he ends his article thus:
<"It is justice vs. injustice, innocence vs. criminality that must be our major libertarian focus."
to me, this article is quite startling in its radical consistency to liberal values, from foundations in locke and original property. to me, marx's description of "primitive accumulation" and his consequent notion of expropriating expropriators [capital vol. 1, ch. 32] can be recontextualised in a liberal light, therefore, where a people whose property was stolen by the capitalist state must be returned to them.

>>2403166
not mutually exclusive with the other anon's argument

>>2408636
yes it is, since the anon imagines largescale inflation has a cause besides money printing - which he has never offered an alternative explanation for. if we take the fact that money printing can only inflate and never deflate an economy, then the cause is explained.

>>2408636
No you see something that is a relationship between several elements, elements we observe to be all variable, is only changing by the change in one of the elements while the other elements stay fixed; which is not what we observe, but we can certainly imagine it to be so, and isn't that what science is all about. And the very ease of imagining this most simple scenario as compared to the more complicated ones makes it appear all the more stark in our minds and thus it is the scenario that wins as the most sciencinematically convincing if you are a serious scientist such as myself.

>>2409149
>is only changing by the change in one of the elements while the other elements stay fixed
printing money only changes the accounting it does not change the underlying material factor that it accounts for. this is the problem with every type of bourgeois idealism. it abstracts all variables as independently equal and interchangeable conceiving of them as objects in themselves separated from their material relations when they are actually in completely different registers of abstraction and interdependent. insisting that printing money causes inflation isn't a scientific assertion its a political choice to elevate idealism above reality. it would be fine/more honest to admit that its both either depending on the scope of inquiry but you aren't doing that because you want to say your perspective is more correct when its deliberately narrow to the exclusion of a materialist understanding of the economy

>>2409426
>replying like this to a shitpost

>>2409426
>printing money only changes the accounting it does not change the underlying material factor that it accounts for.
today, 1(x) = 1 USD
tomorrow, 1(x) = 2 USD
theres your accounting for a 100% rate of expansion
>insisting that printing money causes inflation isn't a scientific assertion its a political choice to elevate idealism above reality
answer this; if i double the money supply in circulation, will prices go up? yes they will, by double.
>materialist understanding of the economy
money is a unit, which if it doubles in quantity, then it doubles in ratio to the goods in society [2x:y]. is this not a "material" understanding of things? just follow marx's value form equation of youre confused - [x:y]

>>2410157
>is this not a "material" understanding of things?
if you say printing money "causes" inflation then no. inflation is a downstream effect of overproduction crisis and an incorrect liberal understanding of the economy. its treating the symptoms instead of identifying the root cause, which is the TRPF, because to do so would admit marx is correct. money cannot create new value it can only account for existing value differently.

What does Marx say about crises in the reproduction of labour?

https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1mebo6m/my_career_is_in_nonprofits_trumps_budget/
The post quoted concerns an impending 200 billion cut to SNAP as part of Trump's government cutbacks.

I've been reading Harvey's limits to capital and from memory he summarises the view that by forcing labour into a condition in which its reproduction is below the means of subsistence effectively devalues it as a commodity, leading to a temporary rise in profit.

Is this correct?

>>2410157
>money is a unit, which if it doubles in quantity, then it doubles in ratio to the goods in society [2x:y]
No. For that to happen, printed money has to actually escape the bubble. If all your printed money is tied up in gibs for corporations, that money cannot be spent on consumer goods, therefore no consumer goods inflation

>>2411000
>if you say printing money "causes" inflation then no
answer this question - if every person's bank account doubled overnight, what would happen to prices? would they go up? if yes, then expanding the money supply *causes* inflation.
>money cannot create new value it can only account for existing value differently.
today, 1(x) = 1 USD
tomorrow, 1(x) = 2 USD
notice how the only change in value is USD. USD is losing value, while (x) is preserving value. value is not being created, its being diminished.
>>2411171
yes, since profits are a subtraction from potential wages.
>>2411711
>For that to happen, printed money has to actually escape the bubble
right, so lets say all bank accounts double in size overnight - what happens to prices?

>>2411928
>what would happen to prices?
it doesn't really matter if prices go up if people can afford it. the reason they cant is because the material cause of inflation is the crisis of overproduction. its not how many permission tickets account for the value of labor, its how they are distributed. and printing money doesn't change the distribution of value under a capitalist state, keynesian or otherwise, because the state works for capital. the problem here is you are taking price for granted as some sort of fundamental, the same mistake you make when "correcting" marx which only betrays your inability to understand economics more generally. it is labor that is fundamental to the economy not price.

oh wait i forgot speedometers actually make cars go faster

>>2412011
>it doesn't really matter if prices go up
that was the entire topic of discussion you disingenuous fool. inflation is the rising of prices, and an expansion of money in circulation causes prices to rise - you are even admitting it indirectly, so your impotent protest against common sense has only wasted everyone's time, hasnt it?

>>2411928
>if every person's bank account doubled overnight, what would happen to prices? would they go up?
That question is contingent on whether there is a corresponding increase or decrease in production. This is why monetarism is so retarded. It posits that production can only stay the same or decrease, or it blames inflation during a special time of decreased production (ex. like say during an oil embargo) solely on government monetary policy when there are external factors.

>>2412055
>That question is contingent on whether there is a corresponding increase or decrease in production
no it isnt. expanded money supply can only raise prices and never decrease them. its a necesary fact.

https://archive.is/2WkXW

US labour market cools sharply with only 73,000 jobs added in July


>>2412171
so you have given up on any counter-arguments? at least i have a marginal victory in any case. but then again, any child who's learned about ratios is able to tell you what i have plainly communicated.

>>2412097
I really hate that I'm looking for work now.

>>2412055
>This is why monetarism is so retarded. It posits that production can only stay the same or decrease, or it blames inflation during a special time of decreased production (ex. like say during an oil embargo) solely on government monetary policy
That is the point of it. It's not an investigation leading to certain political conclusions, it is a "theory" constructed with these polemical conclusions as a goal.

This is the ideology of the batshitinsane main "contributor" of this dogshit thread and the past threads in this series.

>>2412246
you complain by fearfully sageposting with your idiot in arms, yet you have no actual counter-argument 🤣
i will ask again; if the money supply in circulation doubles, will prices rise relative to their previous rate? yes or no? you cant answer it, because you are self-evidently incorrect. just give up, already. you lost.

>>2412258
Love the fact that you tried to pass off an oil embargo as a consequence quantitative easing in a Political Economy thread

Why are you even here

>>2412175
Ok I'll bite. Here's an example of the money supply doubling but prices going down due to increased supply.

https://www.in2013dollars.com/
Televisions/price-inflation

>>2412300
But they didn't have televisions in 1635 you stupid Marxist.

Another win for the monetarists!

Basic definition of inflation: >>2399030
Basic description of multiple factors for inflation: >>2399484

>>2412258
^You, the main protagonist of this thread, are moving the goalpost from:
inflation is ALWAYS ONLY caused by increasing the money supply
see here:
>>2395994
>deflation is the limiting of the money supply
and here:
>>2399006
>inflation is the expansion of the money supply
to:
inflation is NOWADAYS ONLY caused by increasing the money supply
see here:
>>2399050
>>And money expansion isn't the only cause!
>it is today
to now:
inflation is ALSO caused by increasing the money supply
>if the money supply in circulation doubles, will prices rise relative to their previous rate?

Now if you go back to the post tagged here with "description of multiple factors", you will see that quantity is one of the factors already in there.

>>2412299
>still no counter-argument
keep crying and denying
>>2412300
>television prices
if the money supply in circulation doubled overnight, what would happen to television prices? would they rise or fall? this hasnt been answered yet.
>>2412396
<multiple factors of inflation
>volume of money
right, so you agree with me.
>velocity of money
i already addressed this with a keynesian theory of marginal utility: >>2399605
>shifting the goalposts
not at all; you just lack reading comprehension where it concerns the continuity of my argument - give me a specific objection you hold against my positions if you wish to disagree.

>>2412306
marx agrees with me though? 🤔🤣
>A general rise in the prices of commodities can result only, either from a rise in their values — the value of money remaining constant — or from a fall in the value of money, the values of commodities remaining constant. On the other hand, a general fall in prices can result only, either from a fall in the values of commodities — the value of money remaining constant — or from a rise in the value of money, the values of commodities remaining constant. It therefore by no means follows, that a rise in the value of money necessarily implies a proportional fall in the prices of commodities; or that a fall in the value of money implies a proportional rise in prices. Such change of price holds good only in the case of commodities whose value remains constant. With those, for example, whose value rises, simultaneously with, and proportionally to, that of money, there is no alteration in price. And if their value rise either slower or faster than that of money, the fall or rise in their prices will be determined by the difference between the change in their value and that of money; and so on.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm
increasing the volume of money decreases its value, which causes prices to fluctuate for commodities at the relative rate of their production. of course, marx still understands monetary value incorrectly, but its still applicable to common sense.

>>2412621
>you agree with me
If you say now that you agree with post >>2399484 why did you disagree the first time you replied to it? Have you changed your mind or do you just lack reading comprehension?

>>2412641
where do i disagree…?
you are hallucinating.

>>2412623
>marx agrees with me though? 🤔🤣
>>A general rise in the prices of commodities can result only, either from a rise in their values — the value of money remaining constant — or from a fall in the value of money, the values of commodities remaining constant.
You might not be familiar with exotic terms like "either" and "or", but the way they work in the English language is that they are used when the speaker wants to refer to different possibilities. Marx is clearly talking about two causes of inflation here and not one cause like you. And he is just assuming fixed velocity for simplicity of exposition and a couple paragraphs later drops that assumption. Marx says in the same chapter: "These three factors, however, state of prices, quantity of circulating commodities, and velocity of money-currency, are all variable."

>>2412650
>where do i disagree…?
You: "there is no other way that all prices across an economy can rise" referring to issuing currency as the ONLY cause of inflation. But who knows, you seem very flexible in what you believe. You get any sort of pushback and you will pretend to have always agreed on the importance of other factors. And a few minutes later, you are back to pretending that inflation is exhaustively explained by printing money.

File: 1754094659608.jpg (86.91 KB, 1170x995, GxMatLOWcAIgvdG.jpg)

Time to read some Paul Mattick's classics.

>>2412246
yeah glad im not the only one that noticed. careful hes gonna type a book at you

>>2412966
>Mises Institute
>Hitler was left wing
Hilarious that Libertarians aren't aware Mises worked for the Austrian fascists.

File: 1754117149719.png (144.14 KB, 806x290, ludwig von mises.png)

>>2413280
>Libertarians aren't aware Mises worked for the Austrian fascists.
similar to how American social democrats aren't aware the founder of the DSA supported the Vietnam War.

>>2412674
>two factors of inflation
yes, as i have stated repeatedly:
>>2397081
>real rates of inflation thus proceed the real rate of production
>>2399605
>the rate of inflation is tracked from the rate of production
>>2401617
>i have stated several times that inflation must track the rate of production
>>2403082
>what exactly is the counter-argument? that printing money over the rate of production doesnt cause inflation?
>>2403166
>its money printing in relation to the rate of production, as i have stated many times
the point on money volume being an unconditional or constant factor is that money printing can only move in one direction, while production competes against it. increased volume expands; it doesnt contract. thats why doubling the money supply *necessarily* raises prices, which cannot be admitted for some reason.
>disagreement
<is not actually a reply to the post in question
regardless, i dont actually disagree with your point on the volume and velocity of money, do i? you cant provide a single counter-argument, so why keep up this artificial rivalry?

>>2413140
if the money supply doubled, would prices rise?

>>2413382
The answer is: "it depends on other factors" not "yes" and not "no" ffs how braindead are you?

>>2413451
if everyone in the world was given a million dollars right now, would prices rise in the next month?

>>2412674 is quoting Marx: "These three factors, however, state of prices, quantity of circulating commodities, and velocity of money-currency, are all variable."

>>2413381 replies:
>>two factors
>yes

>>2413516
velocity of money is a factor of relative volume. thats the keynesian point. the marginal utility of stimulation is on the side of the government since they buy the shop floor before the inflated standard of price is put up for new stock. i relate this to britain's monetary decimalisation in the 70s: >>2399605
you can think of it by ratio, where an early investor who buys up market share for a successful company uses capital more efficiently than the late investor who puts forward the same amount, since it is the earlier rates of velocity which sets future rates of acceleration.

https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2025/08/04/tariffs-and-the-us-economy/

>The reality is that the US economy has been slowing down for some time and with it, employment growth. Indeed, America has lost 116k manufacturing jobs over the last year—that’s the fastest pace of job loss since the early COVID era and worse than any period from 2011-2019. Big drops in the transportation (-49k) & electronics (-32k) industries have driven most of the decline.

America has lost 116k manufacturing jobs over the last year

The world bank is visiting an energy site in Indonesia in a few hours where I am taking measurements so they will ask me a question or two.

Meanwhile I am reading Hudson's super imperialism book currently.

What is a quirky comment I should make to them?

>>2418926
did you get to speak to them?


Unique IPs: 34

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ 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 ]