/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>Iran Air receives two used Airbus A330s in oil-for-planes deal with China
what is it called when money plays an indirect role in a transaction like this one
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202505258931

>>2298876
evading sanctions

>>2298878
I was told a currency must be involved in a transaction for it to be capitalism. Do China and Iran trade outside of a capitalist framework sometimes?

>>2298887
I don't know what you are talking about, why don't you ask the person that told you that instead of schizoposting

this is an open question to for any anon with half a brain

>>2298887
people regularly trade commodities in kind though

>>2298910
informally and on an individual basis, yes, but not on an international level

>listening to an audiobook of political economy
I'm sure all that information is being absorbed.

>>2298887
After the Roman Empire collapsed people continued to measure the value of things in Roman currency, even if they had none available to physically trade. They would keep ledgers tracking payments and debts. It's just a measurement tool and you don't need the physical stuff to use it that way. We don't physically trade cash in most transactions today either, simply changing numbers in a database that represents money we own.

>>2298939
different people prefer different methods of processing information. When listening to an audiobook it is advisable to rewind for parts if you feel like you weren't paying attention, the same way you might re-read a passage that you skimmed on autopilot. Obviously if you reach a point where there is a chart, table, graph, figure, or image, the audiobook narrator should inform you to consult the real book. Andrew Rightenburg does this in his Capital audiobooks linked in the OP. As for footnotes that is something you should go back and read on your own time but I have encountered some audiobooks that include them (very rarely).

My preferred method is to listen to a book once as an audiobook to "get the big idea" while at work, or doing chores, or whatever, and then go back and read it physically when I have fere time.

As always it is good to take notes, or ask questions, consult other people who have read the book, etc. No single strategy is good in a vacuum but should be combined with other strategies.

>>2298977
Archeology demonstrates that debt records started out as clay cuneiform records (3000s BCE Mesopotamia) long before coinage was invented (~600 BCE Lydia). So the earliest form of banking, which did not use coinage, predates currency by nearly 2,500 years. Storehouses and temples in Uruk held clay records of who owed what to whom. This was actually the primary purpose of early writing. Literature and poetry and religious documents were secondary. As always, superstructure emerges from base.

When Marx was writing in the 1840s–1880s, archaeology of Mesopotamia was in its infancy. The decipherment of cuneiform began in the 1850s, and detailed economic interpretations came much later in the 20th century. So Marx lacked access to this newly available archaeological record when detailing his history of money early in Volume 1. This is not a complaint against Marx so much as it is an additional bit of nuance.

>>2299122
Yeah I actually got the information in that post from Graeber's Debt. You're correct. I shouldn't have called Marx's "Forms" that he elaborates in V1C1S3 a "history." That was wrong on my part. Thanks for the correction.

>>2299139
Is Graeber any good? I don't see much praises of him here

>>2299147
i think hes fine, like hudson. they just sort of decenter marx's critique of capitalism to focus on debt in different MoP

>>2299147
Not those anons but Debt was very good, i'd highly recommend it, also his last book.
He was very active politically in the radical/activist space, for that i will always appreciate him more than any books tbh.

was gonna say transhistorical debt but its not really since it doesn't arise till agriculture. but its more of an analysis(interpret the world, yet correct) then how to change it

How much productive forces is enough for communism?

Would you say 1st world countries like USA/EU/AU are already sufficiently developed for communism?

Is there like a target number, like $30,000 GDP per capita or something?

>>2299139
np
>>2299185
the broader extrapolation of debt is to naturalise its relation as ontological. life is a debt which is constantly being paid for - like karma, or sin. you might otherwise call it "entropy" or "death". society makes debt a meme, which is supppied with by ritual. freud's "death drive" also adds to this. we are driven to self-destruction; which is also the logic of economic value.
>>2299147
i only read graeber's debt book but i thought it was absolutely fabulous. it is a sort of inversion of marxist critique, by analysing the superstructure (or sphere of circulation, rather than production), and seeing how this affects society (other books with this same theme include baudrillard's "symbolic exchange and death", and kojin karatani's "the structure of world history". camille paglia's "sexual personae" may also fit into this category). i find graeber's general view of society being based in credit and debts persuasive. the "bonds" of society are held together by mutual debts and forgiveness. money is simply a circulating debt, which must be forgiven after a certain period, lest the debtors become enslaved.

graeber sees how parental relationships have always been characterised as an unpayable debt, leading to ancestor worship in terms of forgiveness (of course, we still pray to our heavenly "father" for forgiveness). crime in general is seen as a debt against society. we are "charged" with a penalty and "pay a price". if it be the case, we may also be "forgiven" and have our charges "cleared", where the "record" or "slate" is made "clean". this directly refers to the tracking of ancient debts, where tablets were destroyed at the end of each old cycle (the structure of jurisprudence today is also overtly christian, where one pays penance after "confessing" to their crime/sin).

good manners are based in reciprocal relationships of mutual debt. the ceremony of manners is in forgiving interpersonal debts. one pleads to another for permission for something, and they are duly granted it. this is perhaps why any lack of reciprocation in manners makes us furious, since we are held in their debt; the same way we may pettily refuse to thank someone who is inconvenient toward us. we feel like we have "gained" something, which is a social mastery over them; they are unforgiven. problems begin here.

michael hudson in his book, "forgive them their debts" also goes into this, where the christian message was in appealing to the "jubilee" year of the jews, where one may be a slave up to the period of 7 years, where afterwards they were set free (like the shabbat, or new milennium). the lord's prayer includes in it the request for God to forgive debts, as we forgive our own debtors. "sin" then is a concept of debt, as we see in the jewish ritual of yom kippur (which is what the passion of Christ is based on). a scapegoat is sacrificed for the sins of the community. this is present in most pagan communities also, where animals are given to the gods (where animals represent the "totem" of the ancestral cult, and so is an offering to the celestial family and tribe). in every way, debt accumulates and is sought to be erased. this is the general crisis of society, and it has reared its head again today, where rentiers have monopolised our land and property to extract resources they dont deserve. there is debt, but no forgiveness. this only ends in slavery, or revolution. graeber however already sees that we are slaves; wage slaves. the "wage", as he explains, was originally the personal fund given to servants. likewise, the "slaves" of antiquity were servants to the same degree as today, and wage workers also work longer than serfs ever did. serfs had an allotted debt, which was paid for by a certain amount of labour. today, there is an unpayable debt - we are existing in worse conditions than serfs.

its these sorts of insights which are very valuable to me, and which are thankfully bipartisan, common sense concerns, rather than academic nonsense or marxist myopia. the class struggle between worker, capitalist and landlord was explored by adam smith as early as 1776, in light of the revolution, and this inquiry has been pursued by all true liberals. in 1690, locke declared that labour afforded man his rightful property, yet it is the fruit of his labour which affords the property of the landlord. a person who believes in property cannot believe in this system;
<"The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others." [john locke, of civil government, ch. 5, §27]
labour is owed its rightful property.

[an aspect of graeber's book i especially liked was his description of ancient materialism beginning with the coining of money in 600 B.C. - aristotle also sees philosophy beginning in thales by this same materialism in "metaphysics" book 1, where there is a progressive movement from materialism to idealism. graeber likewise sees that in periods of credit money, there is idealism, and in metal money, there is materialism. since 1971, there has been an exponential rise in religious fundamentalism, so perhaps that plays into it; "postmodern conservatism"]

>>2300062
>How much productive forces is enough for communism?
People always argue over this because they say "Marx thought Britain was developed enough for socialism in the 1800s so why are we waiting on China to finish developing the productive forces in the 2020s?"

I think the answer is that the level of development of productive forces is supposed to be relative rather than absolute. Relative to what? Relative to imperialism.

Marx always thought Communism would arise first in the most developed nations of the imperial core. In the 20th century we experienced the contrary trend of nations like Tsarist Russia and Qing China, backwards semi-feudal countries having "proletarian" revolutions (that were paradoxically carried out by a peasant majority merely led by a proletarian vanguard).

Now did history prove Marx wrong or were these merely premature births? Those who say "premature birth" say so because the USSR collapsed and China has become in their eyes revisionist and capitalist. Putting aside that debate, which I don't find as interesting or important as others might, it is noteworthy that alongside these peripheral "premature births" we also have imperial core "abortions" like the Paris Commune and the German Revolution of 1919 that were both suppressed.

China's "reason" or "excuse" (depending on your severity of criticism) for waiting on the "development of productive forces" in this 21st century, is that, even though they are absolutely-speaking far more developed than 19th century England, they are still relatively-speaking far behind the USA, not in terms of manufacturing capacity, but in terms of nominal GDP and military power projection. The China-defending line is this: China's gap with America is closing quickly but to expect China to pivot to full socialism and begin exporting the revolution to other nations before they are the pre-eminent superpower is unrealistic. This is a return to Marx, where socialism emerges from the core rather than the periphery… but the China-attacking line is this: if China has already compromised itself and reverted to bourgeois forms in order to protect itself "until the time is right" then why would they export the revolution instead of simply taking America's place as the hegemon?

There is also the question of unequal development. A peripheral country today may be absolutely-speaking more developed than the 1800s England that Marx was writing Capital in, but relatively-speaking they may be kept underdeveloped through imperialism so they can be exploited for natural resources, be forced at gunpoint to take out IMF loans and adopt union-busting and austerity policies, have coup leaders installed if they become unruly towards the imperial core, suffer from occupation due to their lack of military might, etc. Of course Saddam's Iraq for example and Gaddafi's Libya were both more developed than 1800s England, but they still suffered from occupation and destruction when they dared to step out of line. Can we really say they have enough "productive forces" if they can't resist the imperialists? But then we also saw how Vietnam defeated American occupation (at a huge cost of lives of course). So it's a difficult questin.

>>2300224

>Marx always thought Communism would arise first in the most developed nations of the imperial core.

Actually he began to change his view on this in his later life.

>>2300229
Yeah that's true, I should have made a side note about that

>>2300229
Ignoring my glaring error at that part what are your thoughts on the rest of the post? Thanks.

>>2300224
>why would they export the revolution instead of simply taking America's place as the hegemon?
Because that's impossible. China watchers are not really wrong: China would have failed long ago if it worked as any capitalist country does. Their lower profit margins would have simply made them a bad option to invest into, among many other things. China watchers just don't understand the power that the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism provides.
China may not export any revolution ever, but it's impossible for them to take the spot of the leader of the imperialist world without falling apart very quickly. They would lose all that manufacturing they worked so hard to get.

>>2300244
>>2300247
is there actually any evidence marx changed his mind, or is this another popular myth? remember, we need primary sources!
>>2300229
perhaps i am ignorant, but i dont recall marx ever backtracking his position, which is clearly stated here:
<"It is a question of these laws themselves [of capitalist production], of these tendencies working with iron necessity towards inevitable results. The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future […] in England the process of social disintegration is palpable. When it has reached a certain point, it must react on the Continent." [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, 1867 preface]
marx perceives a linear causality as it relates to the progress of history. engels, years later, shares the same view:
<"The working of the industrial system of this country, impossible without a constant and rapid extension of production, and therefore of markets, is coming to a dead stop […] The sighed for period of prosperity will not come; as often as we seem to perceive its heralding symptoms, so often do they again vanish into air." [capital vol. 1, 1886 preface]
engels sees the imminence of revolution.
in regards to a misquotation of marx:
<"The English working class will never accomplish anything…"
it must be read in its context:
<"As to the Irish question….The way I shall put forward the matter next Tuesday is this: that quite apart from all phrases about "international" and "humane" justice for Ireland – which are to be taken for granted in the International Council – it is in the direct and absolute interest of the English working class to get rid of their present connection with Ireland […] The English working class will never accomplish anything before it has got rid of Ireland. The lever must be applied in Ireland. That is why the Irish question is so important for the social movement in general." [marx, 1869 letter to engels]
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_12_10-abs.htm
now, regarding this "irish question", marx and engels have rather crude sentiments. first is engels:
<"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." [engels, condition of the working class, 1845]
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/ch06.htm
he is saying that [irish] immigration lowers the wages of a national working class by a general decline of the standard of living.
marx wrote this, also:
<"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." [marx, letter to sigfrid meyer, 1870]
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm
marx is offering similar feelings. to marx and engels then, there seems to be a ruling class interest in immigration, which leads to antagonisms in the working class. i find no further context to the "irish question" by marx, considering this letter was written a year after his immense declaration that "The English working class will never accomplish anything before it has got rid of Ireland". was marx simply MAGA?

>>2300318

>is there actually any evidence marx changed his mind, or is this another popular myth? remember, we need primary sources!

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/zasulich.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/index.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/reply.htm

I think this idea comes from Karl Marx's correspondence with Vera Zasulich in 1881, two years before his death, over the question of whether Russia could bypass capitalism and move directly to socialism based on the traditional peasant commune.


Zasulich:

> it is a life-and-death question above all for our socialist party. In one way or another, even the personal fate of our revolutionary socialists depends upon your answer to the question. For there are only two possibilities. Either the rural commune, freed of exorbitant tax demands, payment to the nobility and arbitrary administration, is capable of developing in a socialist direction, that is, gradually organising its production and distribution on a collectivist basis. In that case, the revolutionary socialist must devote all his strength to the liberation and development of the commune.

>If, however, the commune is destined to perish, all that remains for the socialist, as such, is more or less ill-founded calculations as to how many decades it will take for the Russian peasant’s land to pass into the hands of the bourgeoisie, and how many centuries it will take for capitalism in Russia to reach something like the level of development already attained in Western Europe. Their task will then be to conduct propaganda solely among the urban workers, while these workers will be continually drowned in the peasant mass which, following the dissolution of the commune, will be thrown on to the streets of the large towns in search of a wage.

Marx drafted several versions of his response (which show his evolving thought), but ultimately sent one final letter. In his letter of March 8, 1881, Marx acknowledged that the Russian peasant commune could be a starting point for socialism, but only if it was preserved from attack.

Marx replying to Zasulich:

>the special study I have made of it, including a search for original source­ material, has convinced me that the commune is the fulcrum for social regeneration in Russia. But in order that it might function as such, the harmful influences assailing it on all sides must first be eliminated, and it must then be assured the normal conditions for spontaneous development.

So I think it has to do with getting excited about this statement specifically.

Marx was being flexible and context-sensitive, and argued that his theory was not a one-size-fits-all model. The evolution of capitalism in Western Europe wasn't necessarily a universal pattern that all societies had to follow. He recognized that the Russian rural commune contained communal and cooperative elements that, under the right conditions, could serve as the basis for a socialist transition. Marx was cautious.

>>2300069
>the broader extrapolation of debt is to naturalise its relation as ontological.
Yes that is the problem. Pretty sure Greaber agrees that debt didn't exist until sedentary agriculture created surplus food which resulted in the invention of writing.

>>2300069
>this inquiry has been pursued by all true liberals
i wonder why "true liberalism" never works out. did anyone ever write about that?
>marxist myopia
oh well guess not

>>2300704
>>2300704
>i believe he says that there is no accountable origin of debt, since it is just in the structure of society itself
correct, if there is no writing there is no 'account'. similarly if we consider civilization sedentary then nomads are not a society because society implies property relations. the "first 5000 years" starts 5000 ya, which by many accounts is only a couple hundred years after writing

>>2300704
>vulgar anthropocentrism
is it really or is it human supremacy and speciesism? if his concern is human emancipation that makes sense, and non-human liberation would be predicated on humans first.

but really how can you both be a liberal and reject the concept of freedom?

>>2300318
>was marx simply MAGA?

I was the one who gave you the Vera Zasulich sources earlier. I have finished reading this post in its entirety finally and am ready to reply to this question.

I think it is important for contemporary Marxists to neither deny (since that would require lying) nor to incorporate (since that would be reactionary) the "crude sentiments" as you call them in the works and letters of Engels and Marx. They are not merely "of their time" as is sometimes often used as an excuse, they are specifically racist, yes, even the letter about Ferdinand Lassalle, which many assert was penned in anger after Ferdinand Lassalle suggested Marx "pimp" his daughter out. Proof for that assertion is never provided, instead we see Marx saying that Lassalle suggested his daughter hang out with their mutual friend, a rich aristocratic widower and covert funder of the 1st International named Sophie Von Hatzenfeldt, but I digress. My point is, don't deny these crude sentiments, but don't treat them like gospel either. Contemporary Marxists I think should not simply be fantatical devotees and hangers-on of every single word Marx ever wrote, but simply people who find his works, theories, and methods interesting or useful for the labor movement.

As for the question of immigration, a more useful way to frame this issue already exists in Capital: Reserve army of labor, i.e. using a "relative surplus population" (relative to what? to the needs of capital) to drive down real wages. Ignoring whether or not an immigrant population is "criminal" or "drunk" or "lumpen" it is much more important to keep in mind that it is the bourgeoisie who are pitting proles of different nationalities against each other. And proles in an imperial core nation should not treat "imported" workers with hostility any more than they should have contempt for proles who their jobs are "exported" (outsourced) to. The bourgeoisie orchestrate production through their class dictatorship, and therefore are the orchestrators of the misery of the proletarians of all nations. The psychology of nationalism and ingroup preference is a powerful instinct that it is often very difficult to overcome, which is why class consciousness is something that has to cultivated through education, agitation, and organization, rather than something innate. This is most unfortunate because it means our battle is an uphill one.

It is also important that we keep in mind that capitalism is a system and that capital itself as an incentive structure has hijacked and overridden the collective behavior of society. Capital drives the behavior of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat even when individuals within their class defect or try to fight the system. We call capitalism the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, but in a very real sense the bourgeoisie are enslaved to capital as a perverse incentive structure.

>>2300704
>>2300747
Cockshott interestingly criticizes Marx along similar lines in this embedded video. I highly recommend watching it.

It is also the 3rd part of a much longer playlist
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKVcO3co5aCBv0m0fAjoOy1U4mOs_Y8QM

>>2300062
While the contradiction with imperialism is primary for defense of the revolution, we can get a good understanding of the actual productive forces required for communism itself and not just defense from Marx and Lenin's discussions on the withering away of the state. You need enough productive forces for a given population for a post scarcity society. You have to build an economic foundation with machines multiplying labor to the point it is capable of providing the resources actually necessary to fulfill "from each, to each". So it would start with things like food and housing and healthcare, which means you need such and such amount of productive agriculture per capita, so many hospitals, this many doctors, universities to train them and so on. Once these are established and nationalized under a workers dictatorship you move on to electricity and trains and roads, and probably nukes and satellites to defend yourself. Or maybe do them simultaneously. You gotta balance this defense with increasing quality of life so people dont become disillusioned. Once you eclipse the imperialist powers you are 90% of the way there but "basic necessities" increase with world technological development so you will also need things like cell phones and especially with climate change air conditioning. Communism would be something like when you get free food and cell phones from the community dispensary and the HVAC techs come install a new AC for you for free within a couple hours of requesting it on an app because they are bored and labor has become lifes prime want.

>>2300783
So much of the remaining "scarcity" is already contrived. See Chapter 3 of Fascism and Social Revolution by Rajani Palme Dutt, especially the section titled "The Deliberate Destruction of the Productive Forces."

Japan could cause a domino and blow up the current financial system, apparently

Which volume of Capital do I need to purchase to become a millionaire?

Also, why hasn't Andrew Tate done a series on these books yet? Feel like he's missing a golden goose here…

>>2300822
>Which volume of Capital do I need to purchase to become a millionaire?
Are you saying you want to use Capital as a guide to becoming a capitalist?

>>2300812
Are you seriously posting the China collapse clickbait thumbnail guy right now

>>2300794
internationally or…?

>>2300769
>direct government organisation and subsiding of such destruction and restriction of production by all the leading imperialist governments.

>in the forefront by the most “progressive” governments, by the Roosevelt Government in the United States

>From Denmark,

>the same way the British Labour Government

>this new type of capitalist company

>The National Coffee Council of Brazil…in December 1931

>The Governors of Texas and Oklahoma

>the inseparable connection of this process of decay with the social and political pheno mena of decay which find their complete expression in Fascism

so it sounds to me like he is talking about imperialist countries, which makes sense. imperialism is characterized by monopoly which results in stagnation and a lower rate of profit as the maximum technology is applied at all parts of the supply chain. imperialism is already moribund capitalism, capitalism in decay, and fascism is one "solution" to this decay, destruction of productive forces domestically to reset the rate of profit, or external territorial expansion to open new avenues for investment, or a combo like in the bombing of iraq.

he also talks about the destruction of commodities in all capitalist countries but this destruction of productive forces is more specific to imperialist governments or comprador regimes working for imperialist governments. i dont think its correct to say scarcity is contrived in underdeveloped nations who have just gained independence for the first time, for example in china immediately following the revolution.

>>2300318
>he is saying that [irish] immigration lowers the wages of a national working class by a general decline of the standard of living.
How is this "crude sentiment"? He is correct.

>was marx simply MAGA?
In what way?

>>2300769
>Contemporary Marxists I think should not simply be fantatical devotees and hangers-on of every single word Marx ever wrote
I dont think this is what people are doing when they quote Marx on the Irish question or in similar situations, its more looking the general analysis of the relation of the proletariat in both countries under a colonial occupation and seeing if it has broader application. The Irish can't be free without national self determination, and the English can't be free while the working class is split into labor aristocracy and immiserated proles whose short term interests are not aligned. You basically have reactionary unions and lumpens and nothing else. Its rescuing the "rational kernel" from a passing comment and seeing how it might relate to the overall thesis, which isn't always possible sometimes its just a comment.

>>2299558
It's all right there in his autobiography if you just read it lmao.
https://michael-hudson.com/2018/08/life-thought-an-autobiography/
>So we had a new analysis of the origins of property, not just individuals grabbing, as Engels had thought. Property was created by the public sector, by the palaces, as assignment of land as needed.
Engels was wrong, it was actually the ebil central government that created private property! This sounds like a "crony capitalism" rant

>This way of getting the economic surplus is not the way that Marx described it as being obtained under capitalism, by employing labor to produce goods to sell at a profit. It was by debt and taking interest in ultimately foreclosing in land, which was the real objective.
Marx was wrong about how surplus value is extracted, capitalist dindu nuffin, it was them evil (((financiers)))

There's also a bunch of stupid bullshit about "jubilees" and "debt cancellation" that no real Marxist should take seriously.

>>2300704
>as benjamin franklin once said:
>>"man is a tool-making animal"
Are you endorsing that view or is it meant as a similar example?
>the negation of personal will in the animal, and the negation of instinct in man's own construction
And what alternative do you propose? Do you believe in "will"? Do you think animals are conscious? And what about humans?

>>2300773
He also maintains that humans are unique because they can write.

Cockshott does deny consciousness, which puts him at odds with communism being dependent on class consciousness. From a hard determinist and physicalist perspective there is no such thing as ideas or the mind and so if communism is possible, it must be inevitable and there is nothing to be done.

Or perhaps communism is impossible and capitalism is just human nature, playing out instincts programmed into the bundle of chemicals and cells we call human. Does a wolf really have intentions? Does it really intend to eat its pray or is that just a byproduct of its genetic material driven to reproduce itself? Do bees and wolves have the capacity for revolution and self emancipation? Or are those words meaningless?

Maybe communism is inevitable and nature spontaneously is self organizing, life being one such example, but that directly contradicts entropy. On a long enough timeline everything ends with the heat death of the universe. That was nick lands conclusion in his attempts to overcome anthropocentrism.

>>2301288
>Cockshott does deny consciousness
???

>>2301290
He says its an illusion. I believe his position is similar to Dennet

>>2300724
dunno about other nomadic societies, but central asian nomads had property relations

the nomadic lifestyle had more to do with grazing animals according to seasonal patterns, they weren't just wandering around aimlessly for no reason

>>2301320
what time period we talking about here? before 3500 BC? i think people might be projecting property relations when they weren't really there. personal property or ownership through use aren't really the same thing as private property or land as productive real estate. like saying trade and barter is the same as capitalism. or saying that gift economies had the same conception of debt as agricultural ones

>>2301324
Would inter-tribal territorial claims and disputes within a broad culture of people who speak the same language and intermingle through marriage count as property relations?

Like, there were no specific land claims within the tribes members (aside form "chief gets to settle in the nice part near the river", or "chief symbolically settles on the north side of the camp"), but between tribes I believe there were bitter struggles over certain territories

>>2301291
Illusions are phenomena which fool conscious beings. There are no illusions without consciousness, since illusions are a relation between consciousness and a misperceived phenomena. What perceives an illusion? Consciousness.

>>2301331
Yeah I think Cockshott is wrong but try telling him or his fanclub that.

>>2301251
>I dont think this is what people are doing when they quote Marx on the Irish question or in similar situations

It depends on the person

>>2301333
Well I'd like a source for Cockshott not believing in consciousness because the reasoning
>it's just a cloud of unrelated phenomena that appears a certain way but doesn't actually exist
is very similar to Mach's reason for rejecting atoms, but Cockshott rejects Machism and accepts atoms. So it doesn't sound like the kind of reasoning he would use for consciousness.

>>2301335
Right he also thinks that Lenin agrees with him in "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" when the position(s) Lenin is critiquing are the same as Cockshotts. He will say he is not a Machist or Berkelian idealist so it doesn't count, yet lately he explicitly upholds mechanical materialism over dialectical materialism.

He references Dennet here
https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2020/05/04/historical-materialism-and-the-repudiation-of-subjectivism/
and gives him TWO book recommends under his "materialism" section, including Lenins MEC and Turing. Says Dennet continues Lenins work in materialism lol.

and since I know that wont be enough for Cockshott fans who will need a direct quote we have comments in picrel.
lots more from related topics in the threads on this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjja-oNyfdI&lc=UgyUuExX9DapVDDvegF4AaABAg

missed the reading list
https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2020/05/01/two-reading-lists/

>>2301334
Of course. But I think if we take his comments on the potential for Russia not as gospel, but as an indication that Marx was flexible and context-sensitive, same as with Ireland, we would find that Marx is not "walking back" his position, but instead clarifying it as dependent on material and historical conditions, and it only seems that he is backtracking to people who do take his word as dogma, or alternatively people who take particular policy prescriptions in isolation from their context and hold him to them in different contexts as a cheap gotcha.

>>2301330
>Would inter-tribal territorial claims and disputes within a broad culture of people who speak the same language and intermingle through marriage count as property relations?
idk lol do wolves have property relations?

>>2301353
I don't know either.
Do beavers build infrastructure?
Do herring have culture?

>>2301347
thanks for the answer. I see what you're getting at now. especially image 3. though he still admits experience of sensations through a brain and says consciousness is just a stand in word for that, but… so what? Are we not allowed to group related phenomena with words? Seems silly and arbitrary.

>>2301367
i think it depends. do beavers exist or are they just a chemical soup? if substance is subject then everything is just stuff and objects are temporary forms that matter takes for a period before it takes another form. if we are to make any sense of things at all we have to pretend objects exist, but ground them within their temporal context. so if property relations is a concept that we use to describe a formation of matter under capitalism, is that the same formation that we use to describe tribal territories? what is the purpose of such a concept? isofar as a concept is objective it has to be shared, we can all agree that a tree is a tree or a dog is a dog, given an agreed on set of constraints but what is a property relation? its more ambiguous and harder for people to agree on the set of constraints. for me i think the distinction is a political one, and whether you call them the same or not is a political decision that depends on the consequences of flattening the difference or choosing to distinguish them.

>>2301380
meaning: are property relations something inherent in nature or are they historically transient? one means they are eternal and the other means they can be overcome

>>2301288
>Cockshott does deny consciousness, which puts him at odds with communism being dependent on class consciousness.
Absurd inference. Cockshott finds the way some philosophers talk about consciousness useless, philosophers of the type that does idle speculation without glancing at what biologists, computer scientists, etc. are investigating. He does not claim that people cannot hold information in their heads, cannot change their opinion with experience and maybe some help of propaganda.
>>2301291
He seems similar in that to Daniel Dennett and has said so himself, yes. But I'm not 100 % sure if I want to call theirs a consciousness-as-illusion position, I prefer to say they find it an extremely garbled concept with no clear consequences. (The consequences 2301288 draws are a non sequitur.) Like, what could possibly be a practical consequence of having this or that position on qualia.
>>2301347
What are these screenshots supposed to signify and what are the practical consequences of this for anyone. What better understanding of anything is offered here by comments like
<im talking about the activity of your brain presenting the world to you
This seems to either lead to body-soul dualism or infinite regress (inside the minds, something is presented to a watcher and that watcher's mind works by something being presented to a watcher inside and so on forever).

>>2301404
obviously its supposed to defend dialectical materialism but if you are just interested in proving cockshott correct learning it will be a difficult task. theres lots of elaboration in the linked comments just like there is in every video or blog post where he says something similar. his position is pretty well established at this point and he gets critique every time he brings it up because it completely contradicts and undermines marx

>>2301421
>if you are just interested in proving cockshott correct
Before trying to read between the lines try reading the lines. I said:
1. The consequences 2301288 draws are a non sequitur.
2. What are the practical consequences of this dispute?
3. "Your brain presenting the world to you…" seems to either lead to body-soul dualism or infinite regress.

Make an argument addressing at least a single point of what I said. You may claim that "defending dialectical materialism" meets point 2, but for that you would have to load up the meaning of the DM view with statements that are already perfectly agreeable to people like Rosa Lichtenstein who agree with much of what Marx wrote without them identifying with DM. Do you have something else?

>>2301456
I think I was pretty clear the first time when I said that from a strict physicalist position communism is either inevitable or it is not. That has a lot of practical consequences, and explains why Cockshott thinks he can prove communism true by doing math. Dialectical materialism does not lead to body-soul dualism or infinite regress.

If you dont want me to read between the lines then you are going to need to be more specific. What does " The consequences 2301288 draws" refer to? Dennett says himself that he thinks its an illusion. Maybe you think something else?

>>2301459
What have you read of Dennett?

>>2301462
What have you read of Marx?

>>2301463
I'm old so I don't actually remember everything but of the top of my head Capital I, II, III, "IV"; Manifesto, CotGP, Wage-Labor and Capital, Brumaire, some letters and articles although for some of the articles it isn't quite clear whether they were penned by Marx or Engels. From Engels ABC and Anti-Dühring.

>>2301467 (me)
And Grundrisse; the thing against Proudhon; Value, Price and Profit.

>you need writing for debt account
What if people were just rly good at remembering back then

>>2301480
>he also disputes debts arising from the invention of writing
interesting. its not critical for my point of view. i usually consider money-debt-writing-patriarchy-slavery all as a result of sedentary agriculture leading to surplus food and surplus population. not really sure what order it happens in or whether it matters. its certainly possible that verbal debts came first and they wrote them down later or even that different places adopted them in different orders. the transition from one to the other was a result in a change in the method of reproduction of social life.

i agree more with the state theory of money obviously. but either way my point has been that whatever it is, it is not transhistorical. i think the religion metaphor is something the guy who came up with commodity fetishism would appreciate

>>2301490
>it is not transhistorical
think of it this way. if there was no "debt" (tax) inherent to society, then there would never be a need for a state. however, there is always need for a state, so there is always a debt inherent to society. stateless societies are typically not civilisations, yet in place of the state, they have tribal rule, which likewise offers tributes to idols. there is no free lunch, but always ritual which expends resources, and this acts as a form of social reproduction. in my criticism of carl menger, i cite adam smith in this respect; that the state is unproductive (valueless), yet simultaneously necessary (useful). this is the function of debt/waste. its like how our free time becomes wasted time. we need this negativity to orient ourselves. an original sin.
>>2301288
if the proposition "humans are animals" holds, then we can assume that we behave in the same way they do. the only alternative is to assume otherwise, that humans are somehow "special". as marx says, bees put architects to shame. if we were the size of bees, would we feel superior? i think animals and insects have as much will and instinct as we do. humans are just "the food which speaks", as the cannibals say.
>>2300747
>is it really or is it human supremacy and speciesism?
to me, it just seems like a theoretical error on marx's part. we can read it here:
<"But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality."
this, cockshott criticises as "idealism", as he says in this video: >>2300773
its idealism because it attributes a special status to "imagination", when of course, the ends of production owe little to the substance of its means. it is the same way a machine increases the labour power of a worker, so he is not diminished by this tool, but amplified by it. would a bee become more or less productive with "imagination"? its immaterial, so irrelevant to the topic of legitimising human labour. cockshott also astutely sees the fact that an architect rarely creates anything themselves; so marx in his anthropocentrism also blinds himself from class reality. cockshott instead attributes technical culture like writing to be what makes humanity unique - i would say "speech" instead.
>freedom
like kant's critique of pure reason, we must see the ways in which freedom itself has its preconditions. one man's will opposes another, such as his property intrudes upon another's.

>>2301392

A thing can be inherent in nature and also be possible to overcome

>>2301654
any examples?

>>2301660

Animals exist in a constant state of either being predator or prey or both. Humans can overcome this and become neither.

>>2301660
Polio

>>2301669
is polio "inherent" to nature?
>>2301665
>humans are not predators
look up "factory farming footage"

>>2301719
Cool language game

>>2301869
is this some attempt at a rebuke?
also, where we incur immunity to one disease, we just become victim to another. you cant prevent death, since life is just a process of slowly dying. its funny though, these popular histories of "progress". reminds me of people saying "slavery was abolished", when more slaves exist today than ever did in history. nature is cruel and always has the last word.

>>2301520
>if there was no "debt" (tax) inherent to society, then there would never be a need for a state.
okay but then you are calling different things debt that are not the same.

>there is always need for a state
like how tribal rule is not a state

>this, cockshott criticises as "idealism"
right because of the imagination part. he still says that humans raises his structure on paper which makes them unique.

you didn't answer the question about franklin. marx agrees that humans are unique because they use tools to manipulate their environment, and that tool use changes consciousness.

>like kant's critique of pure reason, we must see the ways in which freedom itself has its preconditions.
Kant distinguishes between negative freedom, one man opposing another, and positive freedom as the capacity to act, in general. Hegel grounds this positive freedom in the development of the state, and Marx critiques Hegel for idealism for assuming the state is natural, but praises him for grounding capacity for action in the material world.

>>2301584
>the lockean axiom is that we possess our own bodies.
and Marx and Hegels critique of freedom also apply here. you only possess your own body insofar as you have a capacity to act towards your own will which is constrained by the material conditions and level of development of society.

>>2301977
>where we incur immunity to one disease, we just become victim to another.
You're retarded.

>>2301195
First and only video I saw from him

>>2302250
>yes, there are different types of debt
right just like there are different types of money and different types of exchange. but we dont call barter capitalism

>>2303048
>who does that?
people who think capitalism is markets and trade and other human nature enjoyers

its similar to how duty, responsibility, obligation, commitments, promises, and vows are not the same thing as the practice of loaning money at interest

>>2302250
>In Orthodox Christianity, original sin refers to the "first" sin of Adam and Eve and the consequences it has on humanity. While all humans bear the consequences of this sin, Orthodox Christians believe they are not personally guilty of Adam and Eve's sin.

so like do you hate marx and communism because you are a protestant or what

>>2303099
why dont you like heglol then?
>Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.
isn't that what marx wants to do?

or is it that you change personalities with each edition of the thread?

>>2303132
>i feel like i have been largely consistent.
i mean you had a big problem with hegel using god to tie up his package

>yes, and no.
well he basically says hegel didn't go far enough and we actually have to ya know build the kingdom first. or did you mean that you like living in 'sin' and think what de sade describes is how it should be

>>2300318
a lot of people mention his studies on the russian empire's economy

>>2301240
This post seems like it was meant for >>2300794 since it quotes some of the text from Dutt. Is that correct?

>>2301240
>i dont think its correct to say scarcity is contrived in underdeveloped nations who have just gained independence for the first time, for example in china immediately following the revolution.
But it is still contrived. Not by the peripheral governments themselves but by the imperialists. There's a reason the imperialists governments are willing to give endless "food aid" and IMF loans to the global south, but they never want to repeat the mistake of selling them means of production and encouraging their development, which is the mistake they made with Japan in the 19th century, USSR in the 20th Century, and PRC in the 21st century: To force development onto a peripheral nation so rapidly that they become an overnight competitor. The point of imperialism is to develop the periphery by exporting capital to them, but not so fast that they outstrip the imperial core. Underdevelopment is relative, not absolute. The "underdeveloped" nations of today are more developed usually than the most imperialist countries of the mid 19th century, but less developed than the most imperialist nations of today. And the "underdeveloped" nations are rich in resources, but they are plundered by the imperialists. So in that sense also the scarcity is artificial. Sankara, Yanukovych, and Evo Morales had somewhat different politics and methods from one another, but they were all targeted over their refusal to accept IMF loans, which are infamous not just for their exorbitant rates of interest, but their demands for privatization, austerity, union busting, natural resource selloff, foreign direct investment, etc.

>>2303436
yeah everyone knows that but it's not like anyone has a real option other than to carry a bunch of dirty ass cash around that can easily be robbed off of them and to do all transactions in cash, which is increasingly considered impractical and undesired by business owners who insist on card transactions.

I know people who insist on doing everything in cash and it seems like a huge pain in the ass vs. direct deposit and use your debit card when you need to buy something. The real mistake people make with non-cash transactions is taking loans and using credit cards.

>>2303545
>well its not even a legal option, really. you need a bank account to transfer your income into. your boss will not be paying you with cash.
depends on the job. in my early 20s I had a job laying carpet and concrete with some tremendously racist rednecks and they paid me about 250/week under the table. This was only about 14 years ago. Of course most "respectable" jobs won't pay you this way, but you'd be suprised how many people are still paid this way, even in the "Developed" countries.

>>2303545
>well the credit system is baked into necessary functions, like mortgage loans.

most people pay rent and don't have a snowball's chance in hell at home ownership. Many default on their mortages. But yes. Not to contradict your point.

>>2303545
>no, not everyone knows that. people assume banks are storage facilities, rather than private businesses. people think they have access "their" accounts, when they are at the mercy of trustees. if they behave in a way against policy, their accounts may even be frozen and seized. its not their money.
While you are correct on this point, it's important to not confuse the legal reality of banking (what you describe) with what is actually practical and enforceable. The ruling class are still the bourgeoisie. To say that the bourgeoisie do not "own" their own liquid capital and that the banks control everything leads to petty bourgeois errors of the American Libertarian variety. It ignores that the banks are an instrument of bourgeois class solidarity and bourgeois class discipline, and that the proles who deposite their wages into banks are much more at the mercy of the banks than the literal billionaires who deposit their capital gains. A billionaire still effectively owns his own capital even if it's in a bank and his capital gains are not in much danger of being seized unless said billionaire tries to pull a Friedrich Engels and start funding communists.

>>2303099
>as a liberal
>[…]
>i am anti-capitalist.
But Black Dynamite, liberalism is the ideology of the bourgeoisie!

>>2303142
>can you refresh my memory?
you said that dialectics were invalid because hegel appeals to god like aristotles prime mover
>as a protestant
yeah okay i cant tell if this is facetious
>many marxists become catholics (and vice versa)
i think so too
>i believe in "grace" through faith
yes that is the biggest difference. protestants believe in faith alone as distinguished from salvation through works

most of the posts are gone but we do have this quote preserved from you
>you are just saying im infected with bourgeois ideology as if i have chosen to worship the wrong God. i do not argue from faith
"largely consistent"
>a man of God and the world
sounds dialectical

>>2303392
yes
>>2303414
>Not by the peripheral governments themselves but by the imperialists.
>>2301209
>internationally or…?
i get what you are saying, but unless you are mean that imperialists should share their surplus, what i meant by "china after the revolution" is that there are places where they dont actually have the productive forces for even basic things like feeding people, even if that situation is contrived in so far as its a result of capitalist/imperialist decisions that preceded it. like its not just a matter of redistribution on a national basis that would overcome the contrivance. uneven development also happens within a nation on the rural-urban divide, and since underdevelopment is relative you can have a population increasing faster then the economic base necessary to support it. i just think the meaning of artificial in artificial scarcity is a bit more narrow, like if you have enough food to feed everyone but you burn the oranges in kerosene to decrease supply and increase prices. but i fully agree with the relative nature of the necessary level of development of productive forces being in comparison and for self defense against the leading imperialist powers.

>>2303758
>i am a bourgeois thinker, and wish to complete the bourgeois revolution. liberté. egalité. fraternité.
for you, how is this "anti-capitalist"?

>>2303833
Thanks for replying, I understand better what you're getting at now, thanks.

>>2303758
>to complete the bourgeois revolution
so did marx lol. except he realized that liberté egalité fraternité are incompatible with private property, where liberals think true freedom is borne from it

>>2304164
>that doesnt seem to be coherent.
yeah i dont think your position is
>my critique of hegel's dialectical logic
okay but this makes sense from a formal logic perspective but ABC relates to eachother by relation to the whole, the absolute. so they are not relations of the same kind.
>you can think of it economically.
you can if you want i guess. im not here to defend catholicism. indulgences are pretty obviously bs and good works is meant as something more like hegels concept of freedom being aligning oneself with rational structures that embody collective freedom, which can be seen as utilization of the laws of nature according to human understanding and science, which is just a secular way to say "following gods plan"

>where is this quote from?
>>2212353

>>2304177
>i dont think marx was a liberal though, but a critic of liberalism
right i dont think hes a liberal either but i do think his critique is meant to fulfill the promises of liberalism

you also said that freedom is slavery so its interesting now that you say you are defending liberty and call yourself a liberal

>>my position then does not necessitate freedom, but only ethics. >>2203802

>what it might mean to you
hes saying that primitive accumulation is the socialization of production but doesn't go far enough because the products of labor remain private which leads to monopoly and stagnation by its own logic

>i am a bourgeois thinker, and wish to complete the bourgeois revolution. liberté. egalité. fraternité
Lurking again and yeah, leftypol really went down the shitter the last few months

>>2304411
4chan going down for a bit was a disaster. But regarding his point, it's actually not uncommon among the left.
I can't pull out the video where a guy is talking about this, but emancipations with Daniel tutt video was talking about this precise thing.

Basically that liberalism is incapable of providing the promises it makes, liberté etc. And that leftism is taking that promise on and trying to overcome liberalism to actually achieve it.

>>2304411
>>2304435
Actually on second thought, I have read nothing except the last 3 posts. Disregard what I said. Probably makes no sense. My apologies.

well yeah that guy is a neokeynesian or something that wants to use mmt to print money for ubi and pay privately owned ai a wage because capital can create value without human labor to make market-notcommunism-notanarchism-liberalism-but-notcapitalism who is also an kantian empiricist and newly converted protestant who thinks the state and communism are slavery and that value and debt and apparently markets are both human nature and transhistorical eternal laws of the universe but marxists are religious dogmatists who dont read dont understand philosophy or science because marx didn't actually make any contributions to humanity and just plagiarized adam smith but also also that communism is an affront to god that disrupts the natural order and always results in a gorillion dead because hegel was a mystical devil worshipper but also we should engage in sin because it feels good

you see its all very coherent and logical unlike marxism

Found this interesting and posting it in every thread where it's relevant (usapol, political economy, prc, isg)

Burgerland petty booj youtuber tries to make a grill brush in burgerland, and it ends up costing 4x as much as standard foreign shit, and even after trying his ass off he still ends up needing to import one of the most important parts (the signature chainmail on the grill brushhead) from India (in order to avoid buying from the dastardly commies), but then later on finds out that the Indians were just reselling Chinese shit anyway.

The video ends with an impassioned plea to p-p-please buy American even if it's not profitable because muh community muh nationalism muh smol biz owners. All in All very delusional petty bourgeois video from a guy who means well but doesn't really seem to understand why capitalism is eviscerating him.

There's also an aside about grill brushes with bristles being really dangerous and the bristles can fuck up your organs

>>2305229
>means well

because what, he wants other people to buy american to escape the commies??

>>2305229
also bro you don't need to post this in three threads

>>2305242
it's not hurting you so comment on it or ignore it. don't make some annoying meta complaint

>>2304177
How can one be a "bourgeois thinker" and a "liberal" but at the same time anti-capitalist? Why would a "bourgeois thinker" oppose the system created by and operated for the benefit of the bourgeosie as a class? When in history has the ruling class destroyed deliberately their own system for being unfair?

>>2305256
>if A=B, and B=C, then A=C.
the relation between A B and C is not the same as the relation between A B C and the absolute, that is the between the parts and other parts and the parts and the whole.
>not in the least. marx describes primitive accumulation here
and also in the chapter you first linked, which describes exactly what I said
why did you even ask?
and tell us what it means to you

>What does the primitive accumulation of capital … resolve itself into?

>Private property, as the antithesis to social, collective property, exists only where the means of labour and the external conditions of labour belong to private individuals. But according as these private individuals are labourers or not labourers, private property has a different character. The private property of the labourer in his means of production is the foundation of petty industry … is an essential condition for the development of social production and of the free individuality of the labourer himself. Of course, this petty mode of production exists also under slavery, serfdom … This mode of production presupposes parcelling of the soil and scattering of the other means of production.
first he tells us that the character of private property depends on whether it is owned by individual producers or people who do not work

>'As it excludes the concentration of these means of production, so also it excludes cooperation, division of labour within each separate process of production, the control over, and the productive application of the forces of Nature by society, and the free development of the social productive powers. It is compatible only with a system of production, and a society, moving within narrow and more or less primitive bounds. At a certain stage of development, it brings forth the material agencies for its own dissolution.
now he describes how the property of individual producers brings about its own destruction because it lacks socialization

>Its annihilation, the transformation of the individualised and scattered means of production into socially concentrated ones, of the pigmy property of the many into the huge property of the few, the expropriation of the great mass of the people from the soil … Self-earned private property, that is based, so to say, on the fusing together of the isolated, independent labouring individual with the conditions of his labour, is supplanted by capitalistic private property

>this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the cooperative form of the labour process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usable in common, the economising of all means of production by their use as means of production of combined, socialised labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world market, and with this, the international character of the capitalistic regime.
and that destruction is what marx calls primitive accumulation of capital which socializes the means of production while privitizing the profits

>capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on cooperation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production.
then he tells us that this creates an opportunity for communism.

>The transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual labour, into capitalist private property is, naturally, a process, incomparably more protracted, violent, and difficult, than the transformation of capitalistic private property, already practically resting on socialised production, into socialised property. In the former case, we had the expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter, we have the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people
and closes out saying it was really violent, but it will be easier for us because there are more workers than borg

>>2305269
>i prefer to let you live in fantasy.
you prefer not holding clear positions so you can change them whenever you get proven wrong

>if i make the simple arithmetic sum: 1+1=2
u a platonist too?

>>2305305
Its strange that you claim to be Christian and do not(or pretend not) to understand when Hegels says the Christian trinity is an mystical occluded representation of his dialectical method. Hegel was also (supposedly) a protestant after all. God the Father (Universal) particularizes in Christ (Particular) and becomes concrete through the Spirit (Individual) in the believer. Hegel stresses the physicality of Christ's incarnation against abstract spirituality, the "Word made flesh". The crucifixion especially shows God's immersion in material finitude. He resolves the apparent contradiction in the Trinity (three persons but one substance) through dialectics, difference preserved within unity. This is the same as the contradiction that I≠U. For Hegel, the Holy Spirit's work in the community completes God's self-realization. God actualized in the community of believers, the Universal returning to itself through the Particular. The Spirit is the living presence of God in the individual consciousness and the collective Church. The Father is not "God" in full actuality apart from the Son and Spirit. The Son (Christ) is the "truth" of the Father made manifest, without the Incarnation, God remains an empty abstraction. The Spirit is God’s return to self through human finitude, completing the syllogism. Christ’s death (particularity negated) is the pivotal moment, the death of God-in-finite-form sublates (aufheben) the separation between divine and human. Finitude ("I") is not annihilated but preserved and elevated into the life of the Spirit ("U"). The "gap" between God (U) and humanity (I) is mediated through Christ’s sacrifice (P). The gap between humanity and God is overcome within material history, not postponed to an afterlife. For Hegel the Trinity’s culmination in the Spirit requires the material community, this is not "idealism" in the subjective sense, it is God constituting himself through the finite, material world.
Its entirely possible if Hegel was more explicit, if he did not write the way he did, he could have been persecuted for athiesm, even fired from his post, the same way Spinoza was excommunicated. And of course Marx does exactly that, Hegelianizing Hegel, he also does not simply overcome him, but merely repeats at a higher level. The Church as a political institution is obvious in Catholicism, but hidden for Protestants, with the invention of the printing press and numerous "interpretations", yet Luther and Calvin were as dogmatic as Rome when challenged. For Orthodox Lutherans (and Catholics), Hegel’s claim that "God is God only insofar as He knows Himself" (through human consciousness/history) collapses transcendence into immanence. This erases the personal, sovereign God of Scripture, the core of "atheism" accusations against philosophers since Socrates. Luther even called reason "the Devil’s whore" when it challenged sola fide, and called for the execution of blasphemers and heretics. What binds these different interpretations together is belief by blind faith, as it is with yourself, rather than reason, as it is with dialectics.

>>2305305
>so to you, the "absolute" is the form of the syllogism itself?
That is what Hegel says.
>do these results owe their construction to a participation in the sum itself? no. here's why.
No, its because 1 and 2 are abstract symbols that dont have a concrete reality prior to or independent from humans using them to do math.
>mediated by what are called "functions" (+, ×, ÷, etc.)
Those are operators not functions.
>this is the hegelian "middle term" which relates variables to each other.
No its not, the "middle term" is the particular which is a concrete determination of a material thing that relates the individual to the universal.
>hegel's false construction is giving (pre)condition to the variables [I-P-U]
Its not a false construction, the terms of I-P-U are not predetermined because they do not exist outside their concrete determinations. Hegels syllogism isn't an abstract form but a description of material reality.
The Individual only becomes concretely individual through its particularization of the Universal. The Universal only becomes concrete through its instantiation in the Particular and Individual. The terms co-constitute each other within the syllogism. Hegel isn't saying the form magically creates pre-existing terms. He's saying Reality (the Absolute Idea) exists only as this process of self-mediation. The syllogism is the dynamic movement from one to the other and back again.
>the issue with this, is that it creates a contradiction
No, thats literally the entire point. The contradiction is essential. Things do not have static identities where I=U, things are determined by the process of overcoming the distinction between I and U as mediated through P. The contradiction I ≠ U is not a flaw but the engine that drives the dialectic forward. P is the necessary bridge because I and U are distinct within their unity. The distinction (I ≠ U) isn't erased, it's preserved within a higher unity achieved through the mediating activity (P).
The "Absolute as Syllogism" is this active process of mediation, not a state where I and U collapse into featureless sameness. The apparent separation is the moment of difference that demands mediation (P). This mediation isn't just a connection, it's the process by which I and U define each other.
The form (I-P-U) isn't the Absolute in isolation. The Absolute is the entire, self-enclosed system of syllogisms (Subjective, Objective, Idea) where every moment mediates every other. It is the self-mediating activity of the concept actualizing itself through its own determinations.
Exactly as has been repeated probably a hundred times you are making a category error conflating formal logic for dialectical logic. Abstract "forms" as in formal logic, are not real. They can be useful, as in math, but they do not represent reality as it actually is, merely an approximation.
You implicitly treat numbers (1, 2) and the operation (+) as pre-existing, self-subsistent entities participating in a relationship. This is idealism. Numbers are only real insofar as they stand in for real objects. There is no 1 existing prior to its participation in relations like + or =. Its identity is constituted through its mediation within the system of arithmetic/logic.
Hegels dialectic is not a formal logic that can be separated from its metaphysical/ontological claims. The "Absolute as syllogism" is the claim that reality is the self-mediating activity of the Concept (Geist/Idea). The form is the content. Hegel isn't mistakenly conflating form and content, he deliberately identifies them as the Absolute. His entire system aims to overcome the very dualism your critique relies upon (subject/object, form/content, universal/particular).
Hegels point is that the very notion of a "pre-given term" independent of relations is a contentless empty abstraction. True concreteness and reality lie only in the self-mediating whole (the Absolute as syllogistic system). The "sophistry" you identify is the radical core of his project, it is the rejection of independent substances in favor of relational processes as ontologically primary.
The Concept is not a disembodied, pre-existing Platonic form hovering above reality. It is the immanent, dynamic logic of reality itself, a logic that necessarily involves its own self-externalization and self-particularization in materiality.
The Universal (Concept/Idea) is not abstract, it achieves its concreteness, its actuality, only by embodying itself in the Particular and the Individual. Conversely, the Individual only has genuine, determinate reality as a particularization of the Universal. They are mutually constitutive moments. Hegel relentlessly criticizes abstract Universals and bare, isolated Individuals/Particulars. Truth and reality lie only in their mediated unity within the dialectical process. Nature is defined as the "Idea in its otherness". It is the realm of externality, space, time, matter, and mechanical/chemical/organic processes.
Nature is a necessary moment in the Idea's self-actualization. The Idea must externalize itself to become concrete. Spirit (including human consciousness and society) emerges from Nature as the "truth" of Nature, the Idea returning to itself.
Within this framework, Material Reality (Nature) is a derivative moment, a stage of self-alienation that the Idea (Geist/Spirit) must pass through and overcome (sublate, aufheben) to achieve its full concrete actuality. The ground and truth of the process is the self-realizing Idea/Spirit. Materiality is essential for this realization.
The "Absolute" is the entire process, including its material moment. You cannot meaningfully separate the "Idea" from its material actualization.
Hegel's analysis of Objective Spirit (law, morality, family, civil society, the state) and even parts of the Phenomenology (Lordship/Bondage, the "Spiritual Animal Kingdom," "Absolute Freedom and Terror") demonstrate that the Concept develops through concrete, materially embedded social and historical practices.
The mutual constitution of U-P-I happens in the real, material world. The "Universal" ("law," "value," "freedom") only gains concrete meaning through its particular instantiations in material institutions and individual actions.
Material reality isn't just a transient "otherness" for Spirit, it is the necessary, constitutive ground within which the dialectic unfolds. The Logic describes the form of this process, but its content and actuality are irreducibly material. The Idea depends on materiality for its concreteness. Hegel's systematic presentation (starting with Logic) is a methodological abstraction, not the ontological primacy of "pure thought."
Ignoring the irreducible necessity of the material moment (Nature, embodiment, labor, social practice) fundamentally misreads Hegel. You vulgarize his method into subjective idealism where he collapses into empty abstraction without this moment of externalization and concrete particularization.
The syllogism (I-P-U) isn't a static form imposed on reality. It is the dynamic process where the Universal (U) becomes actual only by determining itself as Particular (P) and realizing itself in Individuals (I), and where Individuals (I) achieve their true essence only by participating in and actualizing the Universal (U) through their Particular (P) existence, a process occurring in and through material reality. The "middle term" (P) is precisely the realm of concrete determination, including materiality.
The critique of the syllogism form creating an unresolved I ≠ U contradiction misses how the process of mediation (P) is the dynamic overcoming of this distinction within the concrete totality. Again, the "contradiction" is the engine, not a flaw. Any reading that detaches Hegel's dialectic from the concrete material world profoundly misrepresents him.
Youre critique in fact actually mirrors Hegel's own critique of contentless abstraction in syllogism that preceded him as an empty formalism with no relation to reality. Hegel views this form of critique as understanding (Verstand) the rigid, analytical mindset that sees only contradictions without grasping their resolution.
It is similar to Marx and Lenin's critique of vulgar mechanical materialism, or of naive empiricism or positivism in general. Hegel views understanding as a necessary stop on the path to true reason and scientific knowledge, but it falls short without grounding.
As usualy attempts to overcome Hegel in the end simply repeat him. All you have done is echo and highlight his own critique of Kant. Using fixed categories (like the syllogism form) as external frameworks imposed on a passive content, resulting in an unresolved duality (thing-in-itself vs. phenomenon).
He called this "the formalism of an empty schema of dead understanding". Exactly what Engels and Lenin verbalized as "static" "fixed" "unchanging" approach that is opposed to dialectics and therefore incapable of grasping true knowledge.
This priveldging of abstact identity over concrete unity in difference is yet another example of unfounded idealism. To truly understand dialectics is to know that neither moment in the passage from Individual to Universal is priveledged over the other, that knowledge always consists of relating both sides to eachother and to the whole.
The very positing of this contradiction is not the end of dialectics, but its beginning, it is the limit of crude empiricism that is the starting point to launch into a dialectical investigation to uncover the essence behind appearence, it is itself the Hegelian movement that opens up to its own overcoming. Thought encountering its own limit (the contradiction exposed by Verstand), recognizing that limit as inherent to its current form, and thereby transcending that form through a more concrete, dynamic, and materially grounded comprehension is exactly dialectics.

>>2299097
>an economy without money is barter
>>2301330
>Would inter-tribal territorial claims and disputes within a broad culture of people who speak the same language and intermingle through marriage count as property relations?
indigenous economics like the gift economy are interesting and possibly a model which we can use to develop non-alienating business activities.

Gift giving ethics really demonstrates how alienation leads to atomization How can you have solidarity with someone if you only care about buying consumer products in the marketplace from them, and can simply drop your relationship to them on a whim? Like neoliberals who "rationally" are dropping their LGBT pride flags because the 52%/48% democrat majority shifted to a 52% republiacn majority. Kamala Harris is not a friend to anyone, she would abandon transgender people the second the laws change, she isn't a friend to workers, she would even abandon her hot sister Maya if it was "prudent"!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy
>Malinowski's debate with the French anthropologist Marcel Mauss quickly established the complexity of "gift exchange" and introduced a series of technical terms such as reciprocity, inalienable possessions, and presentation to distinguish between the different forms of exchange.
>According to anthropologists Maurice Bloch and Jonathan Parry, it is the unsettled relationship between market and non-market exchange that attracts the most attention. Some authors argue that gift economies build community, while markets harm community relationships.
>Gift exchange is distinguished from other forms of exchange by a number of principles, such as the form of property rights governing the articles exchanged; whether gifting forms a distinct "sphere of exchange" that can be characterized as an "economic system"; and the character of the social relationship that the gift exchange establishes. Gift ideology in highly commercialized societies differs from the "prestations" typical of non-market societies. Gift economies also differ from related phenomena, such as common property regimes and the exchange of non-commodified labour.

Communist economy is like the simplest shit ever.

The basic needs are produced via highly efficient, automated, giant factories. Shit like food, water, electricity, shelter etc.

Even in third world countries like Vietnam, all that shit is like 20 hours of labor per week per worker. In first world countries, its like 5 hours of labor.

So all the basic stuff is guanranteed. Then for additional stuff, people just take whatever is produced. And people produce for the joy and enjoyment of producing, becuase work is their life's prime want.

It's all so simple. I don't know why people find this complicated. All this retarded talk about AGI and economic calculation and shit. Wtf.

Communist society is 1000000% simpler than even feudalism or ancient India or whatever.

>>2309224

Capital, by Karl Marx

>>2309298
economics is a fallacious school of thought created by 19th century industrial ruling/merchant class in order to post-facto justify their own political actions as being "just"

>>2309333
>Denying a ENTIRE field of economics just because it doesn't agree with your ideal political ideas
that's exactly what the rich did with classical political economy

NTA

>>2309298
>Almost zero modern academic economist take Das Kapital seriously
Also
>>2309375
>if you ask a serious academic economist they will outright say that they take things from Marx, Mises and other fringe economist
>Marx
So y r u mad?

>>2309298
modern "economics" be like
>I :transheart: landlords

>>2308648
What a shitty boring response. Its like you didn't even read the post you are responding to. Typical behavior dont know why I expected more.
>are you the same person who couldnt tell me the difference between "formal logic" and "dialectical" logic?
We went over this repeatedly last thread. You can read it again or google it if you are still confused.
>>Luther even called reason "the Devil’s whore" when it challenged sola fide
>he was right, but man must live in sin.
>>What binds these different interpretations together is belief by blind faith, as it is with yourself, rather than reason, as it is with dialectics.
>how do i argue from blind faith rather than reason?
This is meant as a joke right? Like the whole post? Where you repeatedly take statements in isolation when the relations that define them and answers to you rebuttals are right in front of you?

Why should I answer any question from you when you never answer anything of consequence from me. Get a blog if you want to talk to yourself.

>>2309529
You just know a MIGA voter made this one

>>2309632
>so there is in fact, no exclusion between formal logic and dialectical logic after all?
They are different types of logic and have different uses and scope. Its really not difficult to understand. "not meant to replace" means that dialectical logic is not meant to be used instead of formal logic but in addition to it, not that they are the same or one is a replacement for the other. There are times when formal logic is appropriate and there are others where dialectical logic is.
>as i say, list what i failed to respond to
We have already played this game too. Just control+f for "?" and see all the ones you missed. I have even repeated them all in a line for you multiple times and you still pick and choose what to respond to based on how convenient it is for your argument, which is inconsistent anyway because you dont actually have a position and hop from one contrarian view to the other as it pleases you.
>>2305280
>why did you even ask?
>and tell us what it means to you
here is the most recent

sorry that your memory buffer only holds seven words at a time. cant even remember your own posts we have on record let alone the ones that are now deleted

>>2309214
tiny north korea manages to provide a modest but decent standard of living for its citizens despite being sanctioned to all shit. now imagine what would be possible with the resources of the entire world

this means that all the atrocities that happen under capitalism are literally for nothing, all of it is just a waste, senseless destruction of life and resources for literally no reason. that's the monstrous nature of it

>>2309544
>repeatedly take statements in isolation when the relations that define them and answers to you rebuttals are right in front of you?
same trick you do with marx, pulling a chapter that is elaborated on 2 pages later pretending like you have some kind of gotcha
>>2202823
as was said here, which ends with another question i remember you not answering
and here
>>2234775
and here
>>2243926
here
>>2202818
here
>>2203784
and
>>2235701

its obviously deliberate

>>2309632
>what i failed to respond to
>>2309544
>This is meant as a joke right? Like the whole post?
this was also a question by the way. are you a protestant who upholds "sola fide" or do you believe in reason? isn't holding both beliefs a contradiction, which means there is a flaw in your logic? (those are also questions)

>>2309959
if you want people to engage in good faith you are going to have to actually participate in the conversation

>>2310690
i have not lacked any response, and therefore have responded to everything

>>2311437
why do you want to know? you clearly arent interested in corrections to your misunderstandings so theres no point. all of this has already been answered you are either incapable or doing it deliberately. we've long ago abandoned my own positions. ive just been correcting your distortions of marx and hegel.

those weren't even my posts or meant as questions for you to answer they are examples of multiple other people recognizing your game of taking things out of context, a behavior which your current line of questioning repeats. your questions have already been answered and you are either too dense to realize it or not looking because you dont want to know.

what is the "conversation"? indeed. enjoy your blog

>>2311481
>so you are literally too afraid
no i genuinely want to know your goal with all this but everytime i actually try to meet you half way you just start up your bullshit again like
>give one single example of me taking things out of context
you are responding to a post that tells you that there is a list of people accusing you of it, a list i compiled in about 2 minutes without extensive searching. your previous post is responding to a post explaining to you why 1+1 doesn't apply.
you completely ignore the explanation and just repeat the same thing. you ask for a list of questions you haven't answered then i ask you a question you do this childish mocking thing instead of answering the question. whats the point? you cant convince me to change my mind if you dont actually have a position other then being contrary to marx.
your questions are not even meant to understand my explanation of hegels position but to refute a strawman that has already been crucified and resurrected hundreds of times. the worst part is that you seem to truly not understand. its honestly disappointing because a lot of your own critique is deeply hegelian and could be interesting to discuss but you arent even capable of recognizing it despite apparently having read more than most of the board.
the part about kants ethics was originally a response to another one of your outbursts. seems thats how you think others should treat you. so everything i said is right. everything you said is wrong. ive only been transparent and honest and ive already answered all of your questions. too bad you are scared to confront the real dialectic

>>2313743
Brutal

>>2315602
>can someone explain
>*counterfactual with no supporting evidence*
higher productivity = richer
the us for example exports almost as much as china despite having 1/4th the working population
less narratives and more data

>>2315602
imperialism. particularly in the form of currency hegemony and offshore military bases. basically NATO, but especially america, gets to run up endless debt and never has to pay it off because nobody can make them. also all the "international" institutions are run by and for the benefit of the imperial core. America has permanent veto and security council seat at the UN. America uses a combination of CIA coups to to install comprador bourgeois compliant regimes followed by IMF loans to wreck competitor economies. Invasions can be used to balkanize nations too, as was the case with Yugoslavia.

>>2315602
read this excerpt btw

Michael.hudson is a crypto fascist ranting about (((financiers))) vs based productive industrialists

The fundamental thesis of third worldism is wrong. The wealth of advanced industrialized societies is primarily due to high labor productivity of those nations.

It's true that Western imperialism siphoned off massive amounts of wealth from their colonies. However that siphoned off wealth is still quite less than what countries actually produce by themselves through exploitation of homegrown labor.

It's also true that industrialization of 3rd world countries during direct colonization was deliberately hampered to prevent competition with 1st world.

But after decolonisation, most of the fault in lack of economic growth is due to the 3rd world govts themselves. A lot of them failed to develop strong, competent institutions. They were wracked with civil war or ethnic conflicts. There was/is lot of corruption, elite capture, incompetently managed dirigism etc.

It took a while for the bourgeoisie of these countries to get their shit together. And now we are kinda seeing a convergence of first world-third world incomes. It's a very long, arduous process. And I think the impatience and despair of people who thought the situation was hopeless led to ideological cope like Third-Worldism.

Now I'm not saying this as a Western imperialist shill. Western imperialism should still be fought by rejecting Western dominated institutions like IMF, strengthening up military power of 3rd world countries, forming local alliances etc.

But the 3rd world govts should not escape the blame game here, that's my main concern. A lot of them are still incredibly corrupt, extractive, comprador, oppress minorities/women etc, incompetent, bad at planning etc. Third Worldism shouldn't be a shield to uncritically defend the Third World ruling class.

>>2315747
Brutal, third worldist on suicide watch after learning that they have their share of fault on fucking their own countries.

>>2315755

>their share of fault

Unless the aforementioned Third-Worldists are in positions of power, no they can't be blamed

>>2315766
What it meant is people from place that was before exploited got their chance and got into power and yet fuck their own chances too, usually many people will blame other countries for their problems but they almost never blame their own stupid cultural practice or their actual way they manage the country.

>>2315602
this image is meant to answer a different question but I think it contains some of the answer to your question

>>2315747

I wanna add one more thing. The rapid industrialization of the 3rd world is historically progressive because it accelerates the contradictions of capitalism.

So for that reason, ironically, the """socialism""" paraded by some third world countries actually worked to stall historical progressive.

If India adopted standard capitalism instead of Nehruvian socialism back in the 1950s, they would have already been a serious capitalist competitor to the West and destabilized Western hegemony. Instead they wasted 40 years and started serious capitalism only in the 1990s.

It's a similar story in quite a few African, Middle East, South American and SEA countries. What is needed most right now is rapid industrialization of the 3rd world. Look at how China's industrialization is already causing chaos to Western economies. Not because of any active measures taken by the Chinese, but simply because capitalist competition and increase in OCC causes havoc to profit-rates a.k.a the very lifeblood of capitalism.

So since a communist revolution is unlikely in many 3rd world countries, the next best thing is to hope to have an actually competent capitalist govt that brings about 8%+ annual GDP growth to catch up to the 1st world.

>>2315747
>It's also true that industrialization of 3rd world countries during direct colonization was deliberately hampered to prevent competition with 1st world.
>after decolonisation
> A lot of them are still incredibly corrupt, extractive, comprador, oppress minorities/women etc, incompetent, bad at planning
decolonization only happened on paper. thats why a lot of them are corrupt, extractive, comprador

>>2315814
Nehru was a social democrat, not a socialist or communist

This thread should be called proudhonism general

>>2319198
no
>>2319600
no

If you could recommend 5 modern books about economics, what would those books be?

>>2342787
>muh rents
>"""unearned income"""
lol this is so blatantly a dogwhistle for jews

>>2343705
Does Hudson really suggest this? My impression for him is that unearned profit isn't profit received without corresponding productive labour but rather in absence of labour itself, that's why he advocates for taxing land and financial transactions and this also related to the hoarding value of money where people hoard forex to capitalize on exchange rate rather than releasing it to the economy. Ofc we can criticize this about how we differentiate absence of labour to non productive labour used to maintain complex social organizations (like if you're a street janitor)

>>2343705
im glad you agree :^)

>>2343757
in other words the whole of your critique of marx is that value is moral, which is subjective, which as has been pointed out previously, a political choice, and the refusal to clarify or delineate between the two different uses playing word games.
>i sympathise with this view from an opposite end, of lockean homesteading
which is certainly no less delusional than being a modern ancap, and has never historically resulted in genocide or justified atrocities
>and so rights belong to responsible tenants instead
indeed you would


>For him the dialectic movement is the dogmatic distinction between good and bad.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htm

I wrote long posts in reply to some of the anons ITT but the posts I was replying to have been removed, possibly caught in a ban dragnet for when the anons in question broke site rules in a different thread. Now I cannot remember the context of the conversation, particularly my reply to >>2300704

Sigh.

>>2344300
Ah! Thanks. It wasn't about debt but about something else: "Vulgar anthropocentrism" in Marx which is addressed by Cockshott in >>2300773 this video and a different anon than me in this post >>2301520

I repost this here because i had posted it on the previous dead general, sorry for repeating the question

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!!!

the austrian theory of value is based in marginal utility, or the rate of demand according to diminished returns. axiomatically, the exchange of commodities requires the computation of two values by two possessors of commodities. those who exchange commodities always exchange for something they value higher than what they currently possess, so the voluntary act of exchange self-evidently entails mutual benefit. this would be a praxeological foundation of a voluntarist ethics. the only opposition to this is to either imagine a lack of rational agency for economic actors, (such as we imagine children possess) or a hidden exploitation in exchange itself (which is impossible if we have rational agents). now, marxists speak of exploitation, but place it in production, not exchange. theoretically, there is no issue marxists should have with free markets therefore, since all they oppose is the freedom of profits, which act as "theft" of exploited labor. the marxist formula is that overwork is theft if the surplus value is privately held, but if it is publicly distributed, then its ethical. the ancoms seem to be right then that in effect, marxists want to just replace private companies with the state, so to induce a type of state capitalism (or state profits, like we see in china). the ethical foundations fall apart then since theft (overwork) is given its justification as long as the government steals from workers. the political divide seems based on this also. capitalists say taxes are theft while communists say profits are theft. so theft doesnt matter to communists, only the thief.

also, the labor theory of "value" seems to be more adequately described as a labor theory of production (which also seems outdated now that we have automation). the act of labor cannot give an item value in itself, as we see with mudpies (or how a bottle of wine raises in value each year). what gives items value is their marginal utility, or rate of demand. marx's idea is that you exchange items at equal values, but this is self-evidently absurd, since if the item you possessed (i.e. money) was of the same value as a car, you would just keep your money. exchange requires relative inequality therefore. you cannot give value to something valueless, so this seems to be either a theoretical error or a grammatical failure. labor has no place in the valuation of objects, so why cling to this?

>>2347866
kek

"unlearning economics" literally admits that he has not truly read smith, ricardo, marx or marshall, yet he imagines himself an authority on economic theory 🤣
11:25 - 12:05
https://youtu.be/FhfDu4wOQXk

>>2362865
his video on value was such dogshit. especially the example he gives of set of speakers at a concert. just total misunderstanding of marx. i'm not surprised he's revealing that he didn't even read marx.

>>2362865
>bro i just ctrl+f and don't read the remarks in their full context or understand that an argument is being developed over the course of hundreds of pages
bruh 💀

>>2362865
What modern economist would bother to read old books when they have modern economics to read?

>>2362870
his original sin is that he does not even discuss smith's infamous "paradox of value" (originally belonging to aristotle, in his comments on scarcity versus abundance, in the first book of his "rhetoric" - 1.7). this is important, since it prefigures marx's internal division of value, and is also the basis from which carl menger establishes the austrian school's notion of value. the paradox of value entails the difference between value in use and value in exchange. unlearning economics fails to pry open this antagonism, so just speaks about "value" plainly, even though it is a self-divided concept, immanent to its own idea (as it was even deduced in 350 B.C.). this is why he can freely say that an audio speaker produces "value", when what he should be saying is that it produces a value "in use". its this basic illiteracy which exposes him from the beginning, but he also openly and proudly admits it. so he begins falsely, by not even conceiving of "value" critically.

another grave error he makes is where says that "competitive market prices are equal to costs", which is entirely backwards. "competitive" market prices are determined by… competition! which is quantified by supply and demand. this is literally economics 101…
40:10 - 40:18
https://youtu.be/8Z2LCNAVfMw
(market prices only aggregate to costs in longterm equilibrium, or what smith called their "natural price").

so like most breadtubers, he seems to entirely work with secondary sources, which is alien to any scholarly ethic. if i wanted to know what someone said, wouldnt i read them directly? "unlearning economics" indeed.

>>2362865
he's literally just a social democrat

>>2343354
what an absurd allegation against Trotsky's Godson, Michael Hudson, of all people

Is MMT serious?

>>2362710
Austria "theory" is axiomatic, i.e. it's based on strong assumptions and unverifiable claims, while LTV is actually scientific


>so the voluntary act of exchange self-evidently entails mutual benefit
>or a hidden exploitation in exchange itself (which is impossible if we have rational agents)
Literally read first chapter of Das Kapital. It's not hard, it's like 10 pages at most

>since all they oppose is the freedom of profits, which act as "theft" of exploited labor.
Idealistic nonsense. Practice shows us that this distribution of labor results in the worst possible outcomes, because capitalists pursue their capitalist class interests, which are opposite of interests of workers. We are here talking about the well-being of human race itself, even it's parasites because they depend on the workers, versus well-being of capitalist class only. We are literally staring down the barrel of WW3 due to America solving their economic problems the only way capitalists know how, and you still moan about "you called muh economic activity a theft"

>>2363374
No, it's a failure. It came to be in a period of time of victory of reaction, and was based on the economic consensus of 1980-2000s. It's just a laughing stock of the economics by this point, because today it's either ad hoc American-style blatant interventionism and imperialism, or Chinese-style command(ed market) economy. MMT was tried briefly during COVID and after, but it turned out that money printing, and nothing else but money printing, doesn't solve economic problems, and MMT is just that - a theoretical foundation for only ever allowing the state to handle money supply

>>2362865
> literally admits that he has not truly read smith, ricardo, marx or marshall, yet he imagines himself an authority on economic theory 🤣
Marxoids: "read theory!"
The Theory: (99% of it written by normal humans not these avatars of ideological valorism)

Sounds like you have a religious faith. If Jesus Christ returned and started washing the feet of homeless Palestinians, you'd be doing the same "Gotcha!" arguments

>>2363567
except UE literally makes videos "debunking" thinkers he hasn't read. There's having religious faith in every word someone says, and then there's claiming to know why they're wrong without even having taken a real crack at understanding them.

>>2362710
>axiomatically, the exchange of commodities requires the computation of two values by two possessors of commodities. those who exchange commodities always exchange for something they value higher than what they currently possess, so the voluntary act of exchange self-evidently entails mutual benefit. this would be a praxeological foundation of a voluntarist ethics. the only opposition to this is to either imagine a lack of rational agency for economic actors, (such as we imagine children possess) or a hidden exploitation in exchange itself (which is impossible if we have rational agents).
Can a society be judged as just and rational solely on the basis of analyzing pairwise market interactions?

Imagine a world with two kinds of people, hole diggers and hole candidates. The hole diggers dig hole traps in the woods. Hole diggers share information where the holes are only with other hole diggers. Hole candidates have the opportunity to benefit from getting helped out of a hole trap after falling into one. If someone visits in time, that is.

Suppose you are hole candidate who is lucky, because you fall into a hole and after a small eternity you get a visit from a hole digger, me! I tell you that I can help you, but I want something in turn. You state your displeasure with the situation you are in and you seem to be angry at me for some reason. You are very close to starvation, and it is practically certain that nobody else will check the hole tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.

I tell you truthfully that I did not dig that particular hole. If I had never been born, you would have ended up at exactly the same spot you are in right now. I make you an offer and you are free to choose. How could that be unjust?

>>2363538
>Austria "theory" is axiomatic, i.e. it's based on strong assumptions and unverifiable claims
an axiom provides a self-evidential clause, so it includes its proof within its very terms. decartes' i cogito ("i think therefore i am") is self-demonstrated for example. the axiom of rational self-possession is evident in its very terms, constituted by the act of exchange. to voluntarily exchange is to be a rational agent, which is why i say that the only proof against this would be to presuppose irrational agents, like animals, children or the mentally disabled.
>while LTV is actually scientific
do you have any evidence of its efficacy, or is this just another "strong assumption" with "unverifiable claims"? labor may have a value, but is in itself, not valuable.
>Literally read first chapter of Das Kapital.
the first chapter says nothing about exploitation, and in the second chapter, exchange is defined as a mutually beneficial relationship where one party trades an exchange value for a use value. exchange to marx is free and equal, since as he even stipulates, the notion of rational self-possession must be presupposed. this is why to marx, exploitation occurs in the realm of production, not circulation. there is no exploitation in the employment contract, just in the length employed.
>We are here talking about the well-being of human race itself
yes, which is maximally achieved by the freedom of individuals. you are either on the side of freedom or slavery.

>>2363759
>Can a society be judged as just and rational solely on the basis of analyzing pairwise market interactions?
well, if exchange implies rationality and voluntary activity, then the more freedom in exchange we pursue, the more freedom for individuals we create. my guess is that most leftists think humans are inherently irrational, so want to regulate exchange. the issue of course is that irrational agents must therefore be regulated by irrational agents in government. are politicians better people than the average joe? not at all; thats why i would prefer a worker's state to any standard "liberal" democracy. the last thing communists want is a worker's state of course, since workers in themselves are generally anti-communist (which has clearly been a frustration from lenin's time to today's elitist wokeness).
>hypothetical
the conclusion is that you are better off with the hole digger's offer than not, since you would die otherwise. the very opportunity signifies mutual benefit, rather than a one-sided deficit on each end.

>>2363759
A Germanic cannot comprehend that "value" or "utility" is not a substance or essence in that sense. Every exchange of every thing, every article, is judged not for "imminent" utility but as part of a larger scheme of a party to the exchange for their own purpose. There is a world outside of exchange where the articles are utilized. So, it's not "axiomatic" that you are mindlessly seeking "more value" in any and all exchanges, assuming these exchanges are voluntary (which they usually are not). The actual purpose of exchange and all commercial activity is not for "value" itself as a substance, but for what value indicates, which is effects on a real world by the use of those articles. In other words, we seek objects of utility for definite ends, not for "general utility".

We might envision general utility as a concept that can be valued, without any particular objective in mind during purchase, but "praexology" is screaming Germanic faggotry and a gigantic bad faith argument.
All of this ignores what classical political economy described, where labor and the contract are themselves definite conditions that are not subject to any utilitarian value at all. In the utility theory, that situation where labor has to agree to the contract is irrelevant, since the aim openly stated is to crush workers and bring the cost of labor as close to zero as possible, such that it can be declared that labor is effectively free and available to the masters on demand.

>>2364171
its interesting that you stipulate the condition of involuntary exchange as part of your argument, prefiguring the essential virtue of voluntarism as an end in itself. also, the utility of an item is not something separate from exchange, since when we purchase anything, its utility is implied in it. why would i purchase something if i didnt want it, for example? and a notion of "general utility" is difficult, since utility is a subjective category, which you are attempting to broaden into an objective phenomenon. lets take a popular example in public art; an art piece might cost millions (and therefore millions of imminent value points), yet its purpose is relatively useless, since it was involuntarily paid for. all government projects effectuate uselessness for this same reason, since they are spending other people's money, to put it most simply. if instead you redistributed millions as a tax return, the ends of exchange necessarily increase utility. so the point is, how can you effect a maximum general utility if it is acted by involuntary means?

>>2364200
I don't think you understand. I'm not a utilitarian and I don't agree with the utilitarian take on value. I'm saying that even within the utilitarian understanding, assuming you can speak of general utility in the manner Jevons described it, this isn't about chasing after a substance that is stored or embodied in the objects as-is. The utility theory, the proper understanding of it, was a precursor to computerization, automation, and managerialism. At that point you're not really dealing with "capital" as such, as the priorities of the political system had changed. The objective stopped being to accumulate productive industry as your economic base to allow your country to be "wealthy". The wealth had been catalogued and the ruling clique was installed at the top. The aims of the ruling elite changed to emphasize the production of particular qualities, and ultimately the production and selection of particular types of people. The capital that remained was entirely servile to the new ruling program, whatever it would call itself. There is still capital in the sense that there is productive machinery and the imperatives of a market society for the lower classes, but the very rich do not need profit and have always been able to operate at a loss for extended periods, since the costs are borne by taking from the lower orders and taxing the shit out of the middle class. The rich voted themselves unlimited free money, which is where the Federal Reserve came from among other things. You would need unlimited free money to do all of the things a country in the 20th century would need to do to remain viable.

>>2363845
>pic

"Supply and demand" doesn't matter for what we are talking about. You acting like "value is created solely by supply and demand and nothing else" is correctly called not understanding theory

There is some exploitation in exchange of goods as well, but looking at it from society level - it all averages out, hence there is no need to bother with it. Exploitation comes from the realm of production, and therefore, since you are so butthurt about exploitation and don't want to admit to it, we don't talk about anything else until you submit

>muh labor not valuable

Literally read the fucking theory. Where does the value (in production) comes from if it all is voluntary exchange and there's no exploitation? Oh, riiiight, from the fantasy tale of supply and demand producing value through business acumen, lmao. Quantify the business acumen, please, in such a way that cannot be reduced to businessman buying labor cheap and selling produced goods high

>uuugh investments!!1

Merely a ploy to monopolize the market, and early movers investing into future monopolistic profits. No evidence of business acumen producing value

>since as he even stipulates, the notion of rational self-possession must be presupposed.

"rational self-possession" is presupposed by labor and company laws. And we all know those don't work as intended ever in practice. Self-rational workers, if they all were self-rational, wouldn't work for in exploitative businesses and instead cooperate to seize the means of production, without letting capitalists exploit them. Hence, the self-rational move by capitalist is an obscene anti-communist, anti-worker propaganda and all kinds of false consciousness

>maximally achieved by the freedom of individuals

Which is crystallized in socialism, which maximally liberates the labor, as opposed to capitalism, which maximally liberates the capital - at the expense of labor. It's like modern schooling - instead of letting rural kids live and die in their shitholevilles, they are scouted and "uplifted" and brought over to cities with much better opportunities in life. Capitalism has stopped liberating labor a long time ago, and now, just like feudalism before, is obstructing progress in liberation of labor.

And we see it quite clearly in the example of China outproducing the whole Western world, socialist economy destroying the world capitalist one and subjugating it to socialism's interests. It is a well-known fact that an ordinary Chinese is better educated and is better educated than an ordinary American; this is practical example of liberation of labor, how Chinese open how many new small businesses now per year per capita?


So, to summarize. Value can be presented through many different formulas, and supply and demand approach isn't useful for the exploitation talk. Socialism gives more freedom, therefore better economic growth. Opposing socialism in favor of market/capitalism therefore is hypocritical for Austrian economists

>>2363846
>the conclusion is that you are better off with the hole digger's offer than not, since you would die otherwise. the very opportunity signifies mutual benefit, rather than a one-sided deficit on each end.
Yeah but the society in that hypothetical is weird and unjust. I suppose that state of affairs did not come about by consensual exchanges and it doesn't look like it gets worse through consensual exchanges, but it doesn't look like it would go away through these consensual individual exchanges either.

>>2364171
>A Germanic cannot comprehend
>screaming Germanic faggotry
You ok bud?

>>2364447
would you at least agree that an entrepeneur generally becomes wealthy because they provide useful goods and services? this ruling class youre describing is part of the state, which doesnt produce, it extracts.
>>2365428
>Yeah but the society in that hypothetical is weird and unjust
i agree
>it doesn't look like it would go away through these consensual individual exchanges either.
but heres the controversy, who decides that their personal power trumps the will of everyone else?
>>2365399
>"Supply and demand" doesn't matter for what we are talking about.
we are talking about economic value, a market phenomenon, which abides by supply and demand. marx also agreed to these terms and saw demand as the precondition of value; the same as his predecessor ricardo.
>You acting like "value is created solely by supply and demand
labor "supplies" goods; consumers "demand" goods, no? its a binary relationship.
>There is some exploitation in exchange
not according to marx
>Exploitation comes from the realm of production
to marx, exploitation is simply the extraction of surplus labor, so is overwork - if an employer doesnt make profits he cannot exploit workers thus.
>Where does the value (in production) comes from
there is no value in production, thats why if i make a million widgets no one wants, the labor i employ os valueless. commodities attain values in exchange.
>Self-rational workers, if they all were self-rational, wouldn't work for in exploitative businesses and instead cooperate to seize the means of production
so workers are irrational creatures, like the mentally disabled? very marxist of you.
>Which is crystallized in socialism, which maximally liberates the labor, as opposed to capitalism, which maximally liberates the capital - at the expense of labor
>And we see it quite clearly in the example of China outproducing the whole Western world, socialist economy destroying the world capitalist one
china is a capitalist country… and you dont think the rates of production over there necessitate the exploitation of labor? but again, to you types, anything is permissible if it is the government doing it.
>Socialism gives more freedom, therefore better economic growth.
is that why citizens of the USSR were starving? of socialism is so competitive, they would have won out over capitalism already. its self-evident.

>>2365689
A capitalist creates a product. That's why his wealth is deployed as capital. If the "product" is some clever financial machine, it's still a product. An "entrepeneur" can sell insurance which is nothing more than a protection racket premised on never having to pay out, but the insurer is not dealing with productive capital and this racket can be conducted by any means, so long as the racket continues collecting.

That tends to be the problem of the ancap faggotry. They confuse the scheming for money and immediate unequal exchange for productive society, and have successfully removed all context for what made capital "capital" in the sense that was described in classical political economy. Marx partially describes such things as fictitious capital, where a dubious product doesn't produce things anyone actually wants but maintains the imperatives of capitalism. This doesn't work forever, because eventually it is apparent the only thing you're producing are your own chains, and the articles you would use in your life and doled out by the master as the master deems fit. That's where we are at now, where you are made to pay for your own "treatment" if you are punished.

I specifically used "ruling elite", "ruling clique", and "ruling program" in the above post rather than "ruling class", and was very particular about that verbiage, since political power is never actually held by a class as such. The ruling class of a republic are the shareholders and stakeholders like landlords, and at first there is no capitalist large enough to assume the full range of corporate powers they came to possess in the 20th century. After the world wars were initiated, I mentioned the Federal Reserve as the necessary instrument of the ruling power, it is not appropriate to speak of a "ruling class" in that fashion, unless the class were a remarkably small group of people who successfully separated themselves from the rest of the capitalists and producers. At that time, and the Federal Reserve granted those people an unlimited line of money which allowed them to do new and interesting things, the new ruling power had no interest in imperatives like the profit motive or a need to accumulate. The prevailing capitalists, who were necessary for building the new state of the 20th century, jumped immediately on what they needed to do to lock down the world, or at least the parts of the world they controlled. It is around this time that the theories of history, the understanding that was once freely described in writing, were not allowed to continue, and a very violent program to edit reality would be imposed. That violent program was initiated in the late 19th century, which is where so much of the reactionary philosophy came from, to test the extremes of what can be introduced into the subjects and their actions. But, the whole program, just why it came to this, is much more complicated, and so far as I know, no writer has ever attempted to reconstruct a proper history of what this turned into, up to the early 21st century. If you are tracing history, it's like the 21st century fell off the edge of the world and is a wholly inadmissible topic. We are only allowed to relitigate 1914 until we "accept" what Eugenics did to the world. It's insidious.

>>2365730
>A capitalist creates a product
>An "entrepeneur" can sell insurance which is nothing more than a protection racket
perhaps you are confused as to the meaning of entrepeneurship. entrepeneurs are capitalists, but not all capitalists may be entrepeneurs. and a capitalist does not directly "produce" anything, but only employs (or invests) his capital toward productive ends. capital only has a claim to production once we get into the most sophisticated machines, but even then, their productive capacity can be categorised as a type of labor rather than capital, in the strict sense. this is why capital and labor co-define each other's imput in the economy, since one makes the other productive.
>They confuse the scheming for money and immediate unequal exchange for productive society
what is "unequal exchange"?
>Marx partially describes such things as fictitious capital, where a dubious product doesn't produce things anyone actually wants but maintains the imperatives of capitalism
any examples?
>political power is never actually held by a class as such
i disagree. politicians form their own class and others may leverage their power, such as crony capitalists or worker's unions. none have direct power of the state, so the state fundamentally represents itself.
>it is not appropriate to speak of a "ruling class" in that fashion, unless the class were a remarkably small group of people who successfully separated themselves from the rest of the capitalists and producers.
why not call them monopolists?

>>2365689
So, you just demonstrated that you don't argue in good faith.

>we are talking about economic value, a market phenomenon, which abides by supply and demand.
In that context, 1) supply and demand don't matter because THEIR VALUE IS EQUAL 2) therefore, profit comes from labor exploitation

>its a binary relationship.
It's a being brainlet issue for people like you. You don't understand the idea of point of reference

>not according to marx
Marx was just ignoring obvious petty crimes and such because those aren't the cardinal sin of market economics. It's mistaking forest for the trees, so to say

>if i make a million widgets no one wants, the labor i employ os valueless. commodities attain values in exchange.

Well then, good luck producing valueless commodities without employing labor, lmao

Point of reference issue. You are a brainlet

>so workers are irrational creatures, like the mentally disabled? very marxist of you.
What, are you going to pretend that capitalists are irrational creatures who won't be trying to divide and conquer the masses? How anarcho-CAPITALIST of you!

>china is a capitalist country…
That's the last cope of the capitalist-brained fools. China MUST BE capitalist, despite all the evidence to the contrary, because how else would you explain China destroying our theoretical inquiries?!?!?!!

China is at the forefront of progress, as a socialist nation should be. For example, China was the trailblazer in regards to crypto utilization for forcing people to invest into the economy instead of investing into property - remember all those timed money benefits experiments? Those didn't work out anywhere, China included, but fact is a fact. China, having a large and prosperous working class, sought to make them self-employed businessmen in the productive sector - direct ownership of means of production, lmao.

This kind of thing is haram under developed industrially capitalism, because this reduces the supply of labor for porky employers. Where China was tasking local governments with literally creating infrastructure for farmers and small scale producers, finding them, funding them, helping them on their feet, integrating them into the economy, capitalist policies of the same kind focus instead on lining their and their cronies' pockets

>is that why citizens of the USSR were starving?
Pffft ahahahaha. Again with this lie? You know that Holodomor didn't happen, right? As in, a straight up fake event, imagined by German propaganda (it was initially timed to 1930-1931, even, if somebody bothers finding the roots to it)

>>2365752
>1) supply and demand don't matter because THEIR VALUE IS EQUAL
perhaps you dont quite understand how market prices work, but when you get inequality in demand for supplied products, you get prices which go either above or below their production costs, so in a market, we always assume disequilibrium.
>2) therefore, profit comes from labor exploitation
"and" therefore? how does your previous statement imply the next?
>Well then, good luck producing valueless commodities without employing labor, lmao
lets rephrase things. if i employ workers to produce a million widgets that nobody wants, the labor employed in production is valueless. therefore, value is not created in production, but in exchange.
>China MUST BE capitalist, despite all the evidence to the contrary
do capitalist societies have private firms, markets, profits, wage labor, divisions of labor and commodity production? yes. or is socialism just when the government does stuff?
>China, having a large and prosperous working class, sought to make them self-employed businessmen in the productive sector - direct ownership of means of production, lmao.
ah, this is fascinating. so you agree that the working class should strive for middle class lifestyles rather than government dependence? the soviet idea of "proletarianization" is self-enslaving?
>Where China was tasking local governments with literally creating infrastructure for farmers and small scale producers, finding them, funding them, helping them on their feet, integrating them into the economy, capitalist policies of the same kind focus instead on lining their and their cronies' pockets
i agree, china is literally more capitalist than the west. thats why it is excelling while the west is declining. as i said earlier, a worker's state would be preferable to a liberal democracy.

>>2365761
>but when you get inequality in demand for supplied products, you get prices which go either above or below their production costs

Yawn. You are either stupid or are intentionally refusing to understand.

Point. Of. Reference. It's not either-either, it's both. But since supply always equals demand in value, there's no point talking about equilibriums-shmuckvilibriums, only unpaid labor matters.

Oh wow, my whole economic theory is based on porkies smartly adjusting prices so that most desperate customers pay more - from wages they received when their company was selling to someone similarly desperate. Hilarious shit

>do capitalist societies have private firms, markets, profits, wage labor, divisions of labor and commodity production?
>so you agree that the working class should strive for middle class lifestyles

Uh-huh, so, what do you think? China is a capitalist paradise you approve of?

Lib on lib communication right now

>>2365761
Oh, right, sorry
>>2365775
>china is literally more capitalist than the west. thats why it is excelling while the west is declining

Explanation for why "more capitalist" China has SOEs taking up 67% of GDP and even more of real productive economy? It's also plenty efficient, judging by how it employs less people than private enterprise in China.

And what about China letting Evergrande sink? They invested into the property market, afterall. Why did China destroy capitalist value so brazenly?

And what about 5-Year Plans treated as laws? I mean, they jail "capitalists" in SOEs if they fail government plans! This doesn't smell market-y to me, dunno about you though

>>2365775
>You are either stupid or are intentionally refusing to understand.
i am explaining basic economics to you. this shouldnt be difficult. a price on the market depends on a relationship of supply to demand. marx himself admits to this fact, since it is a self-evident reality.
>only unpaid labor matters.
all labor is paid for by the wage, no?
>so that most desperate customers pay more
the most expensive items on the market are luxuries, not necessities.
>China is a capitalist paradise you approve of?
its not a paradise, but it is rising while the west is falling - this is because the west has become a sort of feudal power which outsources labor and eats up its existing resources, while drawing most revenues from monopoly rents and the like. if we got rid of intellectual property for example, so many sectors would crumble.
>>2365788
> I mean, they jail "capitalists" in SOEs if they fail government plans!
we have regulations in the west as well

>>2365793
>a price on the market depends on a relationship of supply to demand. marx himself admits to this fact, since it is a self-evident reality.

And whole of this price consists of labor. Duh.

Come on, you should be able to understand it. So many people had, after all

>the most expensive items on the market are luxuries, not necessities.

Are you arguing against marginal utility now?

>this is because the west has become a sort of feudal power which outsources labor and eats up its existing resources

Feudal? Really now?

>we have regulations in the west as well

Regulations written by the capitalists for capitalists. Democracy under capitalism is a commonwealth for the wealthy, however many lower class voters there are. In comparison, democracy under socialism is a commonwealth for the working class, and therefore regulation laws are aimed not at enriching the already rich (what you hilariously call feudalism) but rather at developing the country and improving wages

That's NOT capitalism. Capitalist democracy CANNOT go against the interests of it's stakeholders

>b-but regulations

Wow, capitalists have contradictions, and they murder, backstab, eat up each other?!?!?! And therefore need rules of conduct to make sure mutually assured destruction doesn't happen????? Cannot be!!!1

Again, China's SOEs are LITERALLY SOEs, not fake "government owns a golden share" state companies. SOEs literally have to follow the will of the local government and 5-Year Plans, like some kind of a municipal company or a hospital. How is this capitalist?

>>2365802
>And whole of this price consists of labor.
no, since with a demand/supply disequilibrium, you are always either paying over/under the production costs. t
>Are you arguing against marginal utility now?
well, this is where utility theories can differ. some imagine that utility can be quantified, so production costs confer an accumulated utility to the final product (justifying high costs), but this is contradictory since an accumulated utility in itself begs demand, so its akin to the marxist error of imagining an inert value in the products of labor. others say that what makes luxuries expensive then is merely a function of their scarcity, but scarcity in itself is not valuable either. so the ambiguity about this is that more money entails a greater claim to marginal demand in a market, such that it can be afforded. the marginality of utility is thus proportional to one's purchasing power. keynesians might well accept this and say that we need redistribution to increase general utility (or "aggregrage demand"), which is at least a fair conclusion; at least against monopolists. you might say that extreme income inequality creates a dichotomy between marginal and general utility.
>Feudal?
yes. the ruling class is extractive, not productive.
>Regulations written by the capitalists for capitalists.
so you agree that certain regulations like marginal income tax are instituted by monopolists to erase the middle class?
>china is not capitalist
so what is the essential difference to you?

>>2365745
The literal definition of "capital" is wealth deployed in production. That's why a "capitalist" can be anything relevant, rather than being just another guy with a large hoard of gold. I didn't think I had to explain this to you, but apparently I do.

If you stamp around like a retard and insist people must respect your shinies, no one has any reason to regard that simply because you say so. That's why I had to say my bit about Germanic retardation, because that's the entire war strategy their ideology tells them to keep doing, because that's what German feudal rats did to start bullshit wars to cull their own population, with their favorite enemy in war being other Germans. I am so over this idea that we have to "respect" any part of that. Germans should be crushed under a boot, and if that means the Empire wins, so be it.

Anyway with that said, it's interesting that "entrepeneur" marketing faggotry is being promoted. What did the Soviet Union call their state-managed firms? Enterprises. This was mostly an invention from Khrushchev on, but the USSR's arrangement was understood at the time to be a state capitalist formation. The Party asserted command over capitalist activity and said explicitly "we are not producing for profit or shareholders", but workers were disciplined and their effectiveness judged by how competitive they were in the Soviet internal market and in Soviet trade with the rest of the world. I thought it's interesting because this "entrepeneur" line has been going around for a while and its origins were in Marxist-Leninist rebranding, specifically during the 1980s where the Party openly abandoned communism and the people were left holding the bag. If you listen to Party politicians in the 1980s, they sounded like Reaganites, and the people were aghast at what was being done to them but couldn't really do anything. So much of what has happened since has been playing what they did with Gorbachev on repeat, believing "this always works". The same people who cannibalized the USSR, some of them the exact same people just 30 years later, are cannibalizing the US.

>>2365824
>no, since with a demand/supply disequilibrium, you are always either paying over/under the production costs

Whole of this consists of labor. You were sooooo trigger happy to invoke Marx, how he le admitted to supply and demand, but now, when you get explained to you how it works, get all pissy and in denial

If you really want to, you can consider supply-demand as the upper limit on value, and labor as the actual value. Again, exchange happens between equal values, regardless of utility-shmutility

>muh utility spiel

It means that your theory is shit because it doesn't fit into reality

>ruling class is extractive, not productive.

Riiiight. More examples of redefining words to mean stuff it didn't mean before

It's not "feudal", then, it's rentier. Feudalism was productive back in the day, too, especially when compared to slavery

>certain regulations like marginal income tax are instituted by monopolists to erase the middle class?

That's a non-sequitur, but yeah, Hitler, for example, for his capitalists, straight up instituted a dissolution of enterprises below a threshold, because capitalists were experiencing labor shortages. In regards to USA, though, what you have is not some malicious plot but rather the rest of the world catching up and eviscerating US economic advantages, such as usurping all the banking-managerial jobs (barbarians had to use American services) or heavy industrial jobs (when Americans had technological advantage). Without those, service ecomony at home gets really low wage

>so what is the essential difference to you?

Ruling class. Classes have different interests, and working class is more progressive than capitalist class. In bourgeois economist terms, it means that a socialist state has better, more sustainable economic growth

Again, you are ignoring Chinese SOEs and 5-Year Plans. It is really reminiscent of how fascoids were collectively pretending that Nazis' 4-Year Plan, built not on the SOEs but on subcontracting state tasks to big bourgeois boys, wasn't a failure, and was better than Soviet 5-Year Plan.

>>2365860
>you can consider supply-demand as the upper limit on value, and labor as the actual value.
actual value to whom? value is subjective
>Again, exchange happens between equal values
no, exchange necessarily occurs between unequal values. marx makes a similar point; that exchange entails the trade of a use value for an exchange value.
>it doesn't fit into reality
if i have more money, i can buy things with a greater marginal utility. its a self-evident truism.
>It's not "feudal", then, it's rentier.
whats the difference?
>That's a non-sequitur, but yeah
okay, so we're agreed. the real class struggle is the people vs the monopolist state.
>working class is more progressive than capitalist class
what does that mean? as far as i can see, the current rulers are totalitarian, while workers are more liberal in their sentiments.
>In bourgeois economist terms, it means that a socialist state has better, more sustainable economic growth
a worker's state is an anti-communist state, as i have explained. thats why intellectuals always try and manipulate the masses into conforming to their dogma. thats why the left have largely abandoned the working class in search for new revolutionary subjects

>>2365880
>actual value to whom? value is subjective

????????????????????????????????????

"A pair of boots = 10 loaves of bread" kind of value. It's actual value instead of word salad nonsense

Sorry not sorry, but i'm done with this. You are too dumb and opinionated, lol

>>2366049
>"A pair of boots = 10 loaves of bread" kind of value
you mean its price, or exchange value? marx's fully developed value form is also just a monetary relation, so you should be expressing value likewise: "$1 = x,y,z". even to marx however, value is not just how much SNLT goes into an object, but the abstract labor realized in exchange between commodities, where use value and exchange value unify with each other (in the act of commodity exchange itself). so to marx, value depends upon demand, and without this, SNLT is annihilated:
>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.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
this makes more sense in practical terms when we remember that to marx, trade entails the transfer of exchange values for use values. marx is not far from the austrian perspective here, then. relatedly, hoppe even praises marx's historical materialism as "essentially correct" in this 1988 lecture:
>Dr. Hoppe sees some “intellectual affinities” between Austrianism and Marxism, in the way that each identifies exploitation among a ruling class. Of course, for Austrians, we identify that it is the state — not the bourgeois — that is the threat to the masses.
https://mises.org/podcasts/human-action-podcast/hans-hermann-hoppe-what-marx-gets-right
>It's actual value instead of word salad nonsense
the only nonsense is presuming that economic value exists outside of exchange. the only difference between a valuable and non-valuable commodity is its rate of demand according from its utility. therefore, a thing's value is its utility. you cannot quantify utility however, so what sets the price? supply and demand.

woah has it been three weeks already?

>>2365745
> capital only has a claim to production once we get into the most sophisticated machines, but even then, their productive capacity can be categorised as a type of labor rather than capital, in the strict sense
ownership of means of production is not a form of labor. if you mean labor of superintendence of task delegation, that does not require ownership of stock or exorbitant pay to perform.

>>2367916
no, i am saying that once you have robots that perforn the same work as humans held as capital stock, then capital and labor become conceptualy intermingled. can means of production become autoproductive? the value which the capitalist brings is not superintendence, but the capital stock itself; thats why there is always incentive for investment. keynes also concurs that capital itself has marginal utility, meaning that at a certain gradient, too much money invested leads to diminished returns (this is also why government money holes dont fix problems, because the capital they invest is largely unproductive).

>>2367916
>>2367924
marx's crisis theory of capital is technically correct therefore; that the business cycle occurs due to the diminished returns on capital, leading to overproduction, or underconsumption. as marx also notes, this is only possible with monopoly and/or state partnership in business. when capital concentrares, it outcompetes labor, leading to unemployment. this is a sustauned disequilibrium.

smithanon here. i just wanted to share some further classicism in marx, which you might find interesting:

marx speaks of an idea of "productive consumption" in the grundrisse (1857-58), whereby the syllogism of production is realised in its concept by the determinate negation of value's self-becoming. i just peeped james mill's "elements of political economy" (1821) and he seems to have originally described the idea, in more responsible language. in his own words:
<"productive consumption is itself a means; it is a means to production […] if one thing is destroyed, another is by that means produced." [elements, ch. 4, sct. 1]
we may compare this to marx's own writing:
<"Production as directly identical with consumption, and consumption as directly coincident with production, is termed by them productive consumption. This identity of production and consumption amounts to Spinoza’s thesis: determinatio est negatio" [grundrisse, introduction]
this completes the syllogism of production to marx:
<"production, distribution, exchange and consumption form a regular syllogism; production is the generality [universal], distribution and exchange the particularity, and consumption the singularity in which the whole is joined together." [grundrisse, introduction]
because the universal is able to connect to the singular by the mediated particular. this further relates to mill, for mill also discusses "unproductive consumption" (whereby consumption becomes an end in-itself), and so marx sees how unproductive consumption links to unproductive labour within its own notional chain of economic activity; extending adam smith's distinction between the two categories of labour (and thus of value), within the domain of spirit. this manner of analysis by marx also makes sense for why in capital vol. 1, he begins with the single commodity, to eventually rise into the generality of social production.
<"The truth is the whole. The whole, however, is merely the essential nature reaching its completeness through the process of its own development. Of the Absolute it must be said that it is essentially a result, that only at the end is it what it is in very truth; and just in that consists its nature, which is to be actual, subject, or self-becoming" [phenomenology, §20]

a criticism of sir james steuart, by a simultaneous critique of the critique of political economy:

it appears that sir james steuart in his "principles of political economy" (1767) hits upon the distinction between value in use and value in exchange 9 years before adam smith, but as yet, deals with the matter uncritically, for he associates the rate of usefulness correlatively, rather than inverse, to the cost of the product:
<"The use of a thing, in political economy, means its capacity to satisfy a desire, or serve a purpose. Diamonds have this capacity in a high degree, and, unless they had it, would not bear any price." [principles, ch. 3, §1]
he affirms this by citing the contradiction of a thing's cost exceeding its utility:
<"The exchange value of a thing may fall short, to any amount, of its value in use; but that it can ever exceed the value in use implies a contradiction; it supposes that persons will give, to possess a thing, more than the utmost value which they themselves put upon it, as a means of gratifying their inclinations." [principles, ch. 3, §1]
here, james steuart does not quite grasp the counterintuitive logic of economic exchange, and so in effect, reproduces aristotle's same error, in his own division of value, between its utility and its cost:
<"what is rare is a greater good than what is plentiful. Thus gold is a better thing than iron, though less useful: it is harder to get, and therefore more worth getting. In another way, the plentiful is a better thing than the rare, because we can make more use of it. For what is often useful surpasses what is seldom useful, whence the saying The best of things is water." [aristotle - rhetoric, 1.7]
what is at least immanent to aristotle's perspective however, is his view of contradiction immanent to the terms employed. he also identifies the source of gold's value in this manner:
<"it is harder to get, and therefore more worth getting."
so aristotle at least sees that gold is useless in proportion to its cost, which is a result of its labour to extract. steuart and smith use the example of the diamond, while ricardo reverts back to the gold:
<"Water and air are abundantly useful; they are indeed indispensable to existence, yet, under ordinary circumstances, nothing can be obtained in exchange for them. Gold, on the contrary, though of little use compared with air or water, will exchange for a great quantity of other goods." [principles, ch. 1]
steuart then regresses from aristotle's original position, by assuming a utility which necessarily supersedes costs. this same failure is reproduced by the austrian school later on. the first lesson of political economy then, is to view the inherent deficit in its dynamics, which ultimately relate to the centring of debt in society. we are alienated (mediated) by the abstract parasite of economic value. i would say that a utopian thinker imagines that we can overcome this, while a realistic thinker strives to conceive of its necessity. we are sacrificial animals, accumulating dead labour. the only question then concerns the subjectivity of the form of value, not its termination. as amadeo bordiga cites, for example:
<"If under the guise of the squalid Catholic saints the most ancient form of a not-inhuman divinity, like the Sun, continues to live, this brings to mind what knowledge we have — all too often a travesty! — of the Incan civilization that Marx admired. It is not that they were primitive and ferocious enough to sacrifice the most beautiful specimens of their young to the Sun who cried out for human blood, but that such a community, magnificent and powerfully intuitive, recognised the flow of life in that same energy which the Sun radiates on the planet and which flows through the arteries of a living man, and which becomes unity and love in the whole species, which, until it falls into the superstition of an individual soul with its sanctimonious balance sheet of give and take, the superstructure of monetary venality, does not fear death and knows personal death as nothing other than a hymn of joy and a fecund contribution to the life of humanity." [In Janitzio Death is not Scary, 1961]
capital then, is just another god, and in the future, we will have new gods to worship. culture is a construct of value, and value is the logic of history.

anyone here has some bibliography on ancient economy? anything goes for me, from bronze age to late roman empire, as long as it is in the eurasian region, especially regarding the hegemonic empires (persian, hellenistic, roman, egyptian, even in the indian subcontinent or china).
I can't seem to find any recent material that is not based on bourgeois economics, and the typical ancient history textbooks are not rigorous enough in socioeconomic matters (i.e. they don't have a marxist lens so to say).

>>2374327
>marx speaks of an idea of "productive consumption" in the grundrisse
also volume 2

>>2376029
Cockshott's How the World Works is a good historical overview that should have a chapter on it

Any good MODERN book about political economy, writing in this century and not on the XIX or XX?

>>2376201
21st century is utterly barren of any and all intellectual content. Nothing is allowed to be written except recapitulations of the same ruinous ideas that brought us to this sad situation. Political economy has been pretty thoroughly gutted.

There are books in the current century that refer to political economy and history, and they are surprisingly competent. So far as I know though, there is nowhere a serious re-evaluation of political economy or economics, and no such book is likely coming any time soon. The dominant ideas of the current century are not economic ones, and the political ideas that are permitted are entirely invested in management rather than what political knowledge was throughout history. Political thought has been steadily eroded to the point where we are back to the most base political expressions as the only expressions of "politics" as such. This is in part because at the highest level, politics is a solved game and settled law. There is one Empire, nothing against it in the whole world, and not any serious suggestion that it could or should be any different. The only book on the topic I could conceive of is a book that affirms what is effectively the final state of human society, or at least its final state barring some unanswerable weapon that makes the present society and its pretenses entirely intolerable to allow any further. Since the current ruling ideas seek this unanswerable weapon and believe they can predict the outcome of any and all conflicts, there is an unspoken rule that if the most effective unanswerable weapon were discovered, it must never be built or even used as an overt threat, since it would make clear the folly of continuing this arrangement and thus the interests of those who hold power. The only way such a weapon could be released to public knowledge and circulation is if the rulers are suicidal and intend to end humanity for good, and they believe they will deploy such a weapon towards that end only. Once circulated, there would be nothing in history and human society that could prevent the weapon's deployment, and it would not be possible to use the weapon in a limited manner as a "warning" or "event" to terrorize humanity into further submission. The game would be revealed immediately and no more pretenses could be maintained.

If there is a serious book about ANYTHING in this time, it is not written for public consumption. The public, the people, will only be lied to. Open contempt for the public is so ingrained in the intellectuals that I never hear any one of them seriously consider any other attitude, or even acknowledge what was done to us. We all know what was done to us, what will continue to be done to us, and that there is no going back from a decision made around 1970. Never. So, I do not expect any publicly distributed literature to be up to the task, even if someone worked entirely outside of the intellectual class and published the writing for free.

Even the books that do refer to reality and genuine politics are written to advance an angle and the careers of those who write them, so they build up a reputation as a guru or talking head. Take Michael Hudson. He's a serious political economist of the old type, and no one can seriously fault his findings, but he has an angle and has to maintain that angle, and he's never going to bite the hands that feed him.

>>2376029
A problem with this request is that historians and those who ask the question really don't know how the Romans did things, because the Romans never left behind a readily identifiable text concerning economics or market activity as the central topic. Assumptions are made about the political writings of the ancients and commentaries on them by Romans, but they assumed the interests and biases of the aristocracy, all of whom disdained commerce and delegated mercantile activity to subordinates. There was a class of merchants and financial interests, a profession of bankers and companies that handled tax collection and various commercial and financial functions, but what they exactly did isn't known… only that in the Roman system there was a name for the professions dealing with certain financial transactions, like the argentarii, and the fortunes of especially rich houses would extend lines of credit and had ambitions like Crassus did. In all of the ways that matter, Romans had money, saw economic activity primarily as the activity of coin or things that could be turned into coin, and understood some things about a price-setting market that estates sold to. Nowhere does "capital" as we understand it today exist, because there wasn't a condition where the capitalist could aspire to be anything or succeed. If a Roman wanted to get rich and turn wealth into power, he wanted to extract rent and clear out the failed, and make other free men into his clients. Rome being what it was, there was no path from wealth to power before running into the unbeatable fortunes and armies of the Emperor and those in the Emperor's favor. So, if any merchant got too big and didn't play ball, he was liquidated in short order. After the Caesars took over, there was never a serious attempt to restore the republican power-sharing and a certain disgust at the mention of the republic. The republic led to the system of monopoly and the Caesars by its own presumptions and actions, so why would the prime contributor to the problem be the solution?

What happened in modern times to create the "capitalist", the inventor of technology and that which led to the dominance of technology that never existed before then, was a singular event particularly to a stage of history where technology could claim something that no technology could. In the past, whatever the condition of technology, it made remarkably little difference for succeeding in battle, and new technology rarely favored more productivity, nor was productivity a goal the Romans cared about.

This often gets reduced to a claim that Romans had no notion of "economics" or didn't know how money worked, or that their economy is "slave society" and there were no free workers or concept of such, both of which are thoroughly modern conceits that serve modern bigotries. For one, humanity never did abandon slavery in principle, and as the theory of "slave society" goes around, the African slave trade is still going and becomes a great contentious issue in the Americas, and there are certain people who love to naturalize slavery for various reasons, or justify slavery as an absolute rule of history and an "economic necessity", which it never was. Slaves are always external to the society that enslaves them, and every slave system expected the slaves to be wholly expendable, their product largely irrelevant and in any event the slave labor substitutes for things that would otherwise be done by free labor or some form of peonage. The states of history usually could mobilize whatever labor-power they could attain, but usually had no pressing "work" to be done. The states of history were primarily concerned with the stability of the ruling order rather than an abstract notion of making society efficient, and they were willing to abandon efficiencies so that the familiar ordering of society would remain in place. Only when technology made a much more thorough mass mobilization effective, and there were far more things of importance to produce, did you have the industrial revolution and the mass army formations of the 19th century. Once established, the obsession of the ruling order was to neutralize these mass army formations, looking forward to the day where they could march poor people into chemical gas attacks and laugh as they die, die, die.

My guess on ancient economics and why you didn't read much about it is that money was a subject of great superstition and religious significance. Religious temples were the first banks and financial institutions. If you look at Carthage, where political status was premised on wealth, the political class were also required to assume religious offices. Religion and money were in that case tied closely. It was similar for the Romans, except the Roman civic values disdained commerce and promoted soldiers and administrators, while drawing on farmer-soldiers for the core of the legions.

>>2376029
https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch02.htm
General overview of ancient economiKKK

The shanghai version refutes ahistorical notions that slave economy did not exist in China. https://redstarpublishers.org/RJFundamentals.pdf

>>2376029
i could write more on this subject, but i will give you the basic bibliography as you request. it took a long time to make, so i hope you find it useful. 🙂
a word from friedrich engels is required, however:
<"the exchange of commodities dates from a time before all written history – which in Egypt goes back to at least 2500 B.C., and perhaps 5000 B.C., and in Babylon to 4000 B.C., perhaps to 6000 B.C.; thus, the law of value has prevailed during a period of from five to seven thousand years." [capital vol. 3, supplement]
economic practice thus precedes economic theory. we may now read primary sources of ancient economy:
>homer, the iliad (800 B.C.)
<book 1, lines 155-170
achilles rebukes agamemnon for exploiting his labour, as it is directly written in the thomas hobbes translation (1676), the samuel butler translation (1898) and the robert fitzgerald translation (1974).
<book 3, lines 60-61
cross-referenced between the translations of richmond lattimore, robert fitzgerald and peter green (with greek sources from alexandros pallis), we can see how paris explains a notion of labour "power" to hektor directly. here is pallis' greek text:
<"Πάντα η καρδιά σου 'ναι σκληρή σαν το μπαλτά όταν σκίζει λέφκας κορμό, και την ορμή πληθαίνει του τεχνίτη" [3.60-61]
"ορμή" is connotative of the term "power".
<book 21, lines 410-425
neptune reminds apollo of the denial of their wage by laomedon. this concords between the samuel butler and thomas hobbes translations. other spurious references are the trading of diomedes' bronze armour with glaucus' gold armour (book 6, lines 225-236), of which it is said that it was worth 100 oxen, over 9. this is even referenced by adam smith:
<"In the rude ages of society, cattle are said to have been the common instrument of commerce [.] The armour of Diomede, says Homer, cost only nine oxen; but that of Glaucus cost an hundred oxen" [wealth of nations, ch. 4]
marx makes reference to the iliad also:
<"In Homer, for instance, the value of an article is expressed in a series of different things. Iliad. VII. 472-475." [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, footnote 24]
this describes how wine was exchanged for different items, and so suffices to express the elementary form of value.

following from homer, we have another greek poet, hesiod, who is treated by some as the first to speak on economic matters:
>hesiod, works and days (700 B.C.)
<lines 11-24
here, hesiod describes two forms of strife; cruel strife and wholesome strife. one causes war, the other, social competition, with emphasis on economic competition.
<lines 42-105
hesiod describes man's fall into his curse of toil by pandora's box, seeming to mirror the biblical myth: (genesis 3:17-19).
<lines 106-201
hesiod describes the decline of man from the golden age of cronos to the iron age. man's paradise was free from toil, but today, man suffers this curse (the trojan war is described as taking place in the bronze age, which is conferred by homer's description of unnaturally strong men).
<lines 293-341
despite labour's curse, hesiod still glorifies it as a virtue which brings wealth, countering the idle man who grows envious of riches. for this sake, he also speaks against theft in all cases, but still promotes gifting.
<lines 370-372
wages are discussed, and are said to best be fixed by a friend, in sight of a witness.
<lines 405-413
hesiod speaks of a proper household being one in which a man has a woman and ox for a slave. aristotle references this later on (oikonomia 1.2). the rest of the work is largely astrological codes for production, which in a sense, still exists today, such as our "holi-days" (holy days) where we take off work. the sabbath is also conjoined to the weekend, which is an explicitly religious motif, of God's own rest. what is to be said then, is that in this time, both slaves and wage labourers existed.

after the poets came the philosophers. david graeber in "debt: the first 5000 years" (2011) uses richard seaford's work to give an exposition for this cultural change, in chapter 9, on the milesian school, where the minting of coins (600 B.C.) leads to the contemplation of an abstract materialism (as per the abstract materiality of money). the materialism of the presocratics is also commented upon by aristotle (metaphysics, book 1). marx makes a relevant comment in this respect:
<"The monetary system is essentially a Catholic institution, the credit system essentially Protestant. “The Scotch hate gold.” In the form of paper the monetary existence of commodities is only a social one. It is Faith that brings salvation." [capital vol. 3, ch. 35]
which links to graebers comments in chapter 12, that debt-imperialism is correlative with religious fanaticism, showing how metal money dominates in times of materialism, while credit money dominates in times of idealism. its perhaps for this reason that joseph schumpeter speaks on plato (the father of idealism) as an early theorist of credit money in "history of economic analysis" (1954), chapter 1. the term "σύμβολον" is translated as "symbol [of exchange]", from line 371b of plato's republic. in paul shorey's translation, this line is footnoted by an addition which reads:
<"Aristotle ads that the medium of exchange must of itself have value (Politics 1257 a 36)".
this is also affirmed by schumpeter; that aristotle and plato had opposite monetary perspectives. marx decidedly takes the 'physicalist' side, speaking against money's symbolisation (capital, vol. 1, chapter 2), yet aristotle shows no special protest in his wtitings, and can be quoted from paul shorey's reference:
<"iron, silver, and the like. Of this the value was at first measured simply by size and weight, but in process of time they put a stamp upon it, to save the trouble of weighing and to mark the value." [politics, 2257a 36]
this is in accordance with aristotle's stated chartalism (as we will get to later)… after these preliminaries, we may now approach the philosophy of economy:

a contemporary of plato and enthusiast of economic thought was xenophon:
>xenophon, the economist (362 B.C.)
<book 1, lines 7-12
the dialogue is between critobulus and socrates. "economist" in the first place comes from the greek "οἰκονομία" meaning "household management". my first citation comes at the point where wealth is being described as a particular form of property. one may possess land, yet it may cause loss rather than wealth. we see then that wealth is based in either utility or exchangeability - at this early stage then, we see the paradox of value at work, which is later developed by aristotle.
<chapter 1, lines 13-16
at this point, socrates has deconstructed critobulus' view to even admitting that to possess money, without knowledge of how best to use it, means a lack of wealth, for it also comprises an unprofitable property.
<chapter 2, line 4
socrates explains that wealth is entirely relative to what should satisfy a man. a poor man may nonetheless be wealthy. the paradox of value is reproduced, therefore.
<chapter 3, lines 1-2
more comments on the paradox of value.
<chapter 3, lines 10-15
socrates declares that good workers depend upon a good leader, like a good wife depends upon a good husband.
<chapter 5, lines 1-17
general compliments are given to farming in a physiocratic manner. the land itself is cited as the source of wealth, rather than labour. husbandry is seen as a moral act.
<chapter 7, line 22
socrates says that men and women are divided in their labours; outside/inside
<chapter 11, lines 10-13
socrates affirms that the increase of wealth is a consequence of one's ideal actions in every station of his life, affirming hesiod's praise of riches and criticism of poverty. this also connects to earlier comments on husbandry as a universal form of labour and wealth.
<chapter 13, line 9
slaves are compared to animals in their form of discipline by appeasement. the rest of the dialogue is a reminiscence by socrates of what ischomachus taught him about agriculture. we may conclude thus:
<chapter 21, lines 1-4, 12
a justification for a divine right of authority is given over all hierarchies in society.

xenophon wrote another economic manuscript, typically titled, "on revenues":
>xenophon, on revenues (355 B.C.)
<chapter 1, lines 1-6
xenophon is once more citing the source of wealth in the land of attica itself.
<chapter 2, lines 1-12
xenophon says that natural wealth may be added to, and particularly cites the "staple" immigrants in his land, including lydians, phrygians and syrians. he further says that offering them civic opportunities may lead to mutual benefit for the city. he further says that land should be developed to help house foreigners for the sake of expanding their residence, to increase revenues.
<chapter 3, lines 1-8
he says that shipping and mercantile trade should be promoted as much as possible
<chapter 3, line 9
more visitors means rent and commerce
<chapter 4, line 9
xenophon describes the depreciation of gold as its inflated supply within a silver economy. value is then a relative affair and that the money supply must increase at the same rate of commodity production to ensure a preservation of its value.
<chapter 4, lines 18-21
xenophon suggests a public sector to correspond to the private sector (in the purchase of slaves), for the principle cause of mining silver.
<chapter 4, lines 26-28
xenophon suggests an original investment of 1,200 slaves, which over 6 years, should rise to 6,000, and eventually to 10,000. he sees that this will increase revenues.
<chapter 4, lines 35-39
xenophon suggests distributing the slaves equally between the 10 athenian tribes.
<chapter 5, lines 1-7
xenophon sees that prosperity comes from peace, so suggests "guardians" be appointed, such as those spoken of in plato's republic (375 B.C.)
<chapter 5, lines 18-21
xenophon explains how in peace, riches are stored up, and in war, they are spent.

>>2376029
>>2378214
graduating on from xenophon, we can move onto aristotle (plato has various comments on economic matters, such as the necessity of a division of labour, his ideas of common property, etc. but his work is rather undeveloped, in light of his student, aristotle, who is the most sourced ancient writer on economics):
>aristotle, economics (~350 B.C.)
<book 1, section 1343a
aristotle makes initial distinction between economics (oικονομικά) and politics (πολιτική). he explains that politics concerns the rule of a city, so may take many forms, but economics concerns the rule of the household, so is a monarchy. he sees that a city is made of many households, so likewise concludes that economics precedes politics in formation. he also references hesiod's division of a household's property, between his wife, livestock and slaves.
<book 1, section 1343b
aristotle mimics xenophon's socratic dialogue by praising husbandry as against the "illiberal arts" of the idle. he speaks of reproduction as a form of investment for future payment by children, so you could say that he relates the family structure to a relationship of creditor to debtor (david graeber sees many cultures promote this).
<book 1, section 1344a
aristotle further appears to reference xenophon, by speaking of the sexual division of labour, between the internal and external roles of the household. he then speaks on slaves being best possessions. he divides the slave's role in these terms:
<"Three things make up the life of a slave, work, punishment, and food."
which he brings into proper proportion.
<book 2, sections 1345b-1346a
aristotle speaks of 4 kinds of economy:
<"that of the king [royal economy], that of the provincial governor [satrapic economy], that of the city [political economy], and that of the individual [household]."
each have their roles to one another, and are mediated by various revenues;
<"Let us therefore examine royal economy first. It is universal in its scope, but has four special departments—the coinage, exports, imports, and expenditure […] Let us next take satrapic economy. Here we find six kinds of revenue—[from land, from the peculiar products of the district, from merchandise, from taxes, from cattle, and from all other sources] […] Thirdly, let us examine the economy of the city. Here the most important source of revenue is from the peculiar products of the country, next comes that derived from merchandise and customs, and lastly that which comes from the ordinary taxes. Fourthly and lastly, let us take individual economy. Here we find wide divergences, because economy is not necessarily always practised with one aim in view. It is the least important kind of economy, because the incomings and expenses are small. Here the main source of revenue is the land, next other kinds of regular activity, and thirdly investments of money. Further, there is a consideration which is common to all branches of economy and which calls for the most careful attention, especially in individual economy, namely, that the expenditure must not exceed the income."
the rest of the book is a series of surveys on different cities. we may then move on:

>aristotle, nicomachaen ethics (~350 B.C.)
<book 5, chapter 5, lines 1-19
aristotle describes the notion of reciprocity in terms of commodity exchange. he begins by presupposing a division of labour, which allows men to trade their particular commodities with others on the basis of a proportion which grants equality. this equality, he stipulates, must be a condition of commensurability, which he assigns to money. money grants equality to unequal things. money, he says, represents the demand for goods, and sees that supply and demand determine prices, which allow exchange. he also sees that money is a creation of the state, so is an early "chartalist" theorist of money. this passage has equally confused karl marx (capital, vol. 1, ch. 1, sct. 3) and murray rothbard (history of economic thought, vol. 1, ch. 1, sct. 3), yet aristotle's meaning is quite clear to any honest reader.
>aristotle, rhetoric (350-330 B.C.)
<book 1, chapter 7, lines 14-15
here, aristotle describes the paradox of value, or the inverse proportion between a commodity's value in use and exchange. he identifies this, but reverses its cause, basing the quantity labour in demand for scarcity, rather than the opposite relation.
>aristotle, politics (335-323 B.C.)
<book 1, sections 1256a-1258b
we see in this first place, that aristotle is separating the "economic" (οἰκονομικῇ) from "wealth-getting" (χρηματιστικῇ) or "chrematistics". the economic, aristotle considers natural and necessary, while of chrematistics, he considers this unnatural and unnecessary. marx explicitly signifies these modes of activity as the respective circuits of commerce: C-M-C and M-C-M:
>zur kritik der politischen ökonomie, chapter 3, section a, footnote 17
>capital, vol. 1, chapter 4, footnote 6
aristotle further associates χρηματιστικῇ (what can otherwise be translated as "finance") with usury, which he says is the most hated form of wealth-getting. this line of thought apparently massively inspired medieval thinking (e.g. thomism).

aristotle further envisions that the cause of civic strife, crime and revolution is wealth inequality, or class contradiction, so seeks to mediate conflict by expanding the middle class (a strategy as old as time):
>aristotle, politics (335-323 B.C.)
<book 4, sections 1295b-1296a
he associates the [golden] mean between rich and poor a rational principle, based in moderation (which he carries into ethics).
<book 5, section 1308b
as a solution to class inequality therefore, aristotle suggests a manner of redistribution, where the rich and poor are collapsed into the same middle class. this is also part of his ethics of friendship. a friendship involves sharing between members, and the friendship is more ideal than the romance (as we may read from plato's "lysis", where the term "platonic relationship" originates, as a mode of intimacy greater than any other, because it isnt corrupted by unnecessary desires). aristotle is not advocating for common ownership, like plato's guardians however, but still retains the right to private property:
<book 2, section 1263a
aristotle promotes the ideal of friendship in the view of property, that man should possess his own, but also share it:
<"Property should be in a certain sense common, but, as a general rule, private; for, when everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress, because everyone will be attending to his own business […] For, although every man has his own property, some things he will place at the disposal of his friends, while of others he shares the use with them [.] It is clearly better that property should be private, but the use of it common; and the special business of the legislator is to create in men this benevolent disposition."
aristotle's conception then is a society of friends. there is one glaring unconscious to all this sentimentality however:
<"For, although every man has his own property, some things he will place at the disposal of his friends, while of others he shares the use with them. The Lacedaemonians, for example, use one another’s slaves, and horses, and dogs, as if they were their own; and when they lack provisions on a journey, they appropriate what they find in the fields throughout the country."
aristotle conceives of freedom and equality, but only exclusively to the free. of slavery, he necessarily justifies it as part of his worldview. this then shows the limits of aristotle's thoughts on the matter.

this concludes my ancient bibliography. 🙂

>>2378214
>>2378239
>>2377350
>>2377328

i have no words to thank your efforts, anons, this was much more than i ever expected.

I have made a thread about ancient economy, if anyone would like to add something to this discussion i recommend to go there, see the catalogue.

>>2377350
>What happened in modern times to create the "capitalist", the inventor of technology and that which led to the dominance of technology that never existed before then, was a singular event particularly to a stage of history where technology could claim something that no technology could.
yes and no. the ancients had extremely sophisticated machines. myths of hephaestus even tell us that he created androids, so the technical consciousness was there, it was just subordinate to other areas of life. today it is reversed; even our leaders are subordinate to capital. capital, therefore, is the social subject, while in previous epochs, it was political power. it depends on your sense of causation, but capitalism and the protestant reformation came out of the same birth, and the protestant empires conquered the world. is capitalism then a form of protestant worship, or is protestantism the religion of capitalism? marx makes comment:
<"The cult of money has its asceticism, its self-denial, its self-sacrifice – economy and frugality, contempt for mundane, temporal and fleeting pleasures; the chase after the eternal treasure. Hence the connection between English Puritanism, or also Dutch Protestantism, and money-making." [grundrisse, notebook 2, on money, cont.]
<"for such a [capitalist] society, Christianity with its cultus of abstract man, more especially in its bourgeois developments, Protestantism, Deism, &c., is the most fitting form of religion" [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, sct. 4]
murray rothbard also sees the relation between bourgeois economics and a protestant notion of labour's value, as against a catholic concept of "just price":
<"Great Britain, heavily influenced by Calvinist thought and culture, and its glorification of the mere exertion of labour, came to develop a labour theory of value, while France and Italy, still influenced by Aristotelian and Thomist concepts, continued the scholastic emphasis on the consumer and his subjective valuation as the source of economic value." [history of economic thought, vol. 1, ch. 5, sct. 4]
rothbard also correctly identifies many other facets of modernity as essentially "protestant", as opposed to catholic.
>their economy is "slave society" and there were no free workers or concept of such, both of which are thoroughly modern conceits that serve modern bigotries.
i completely agree, and according from your following comments, we might even see how there has literally never been more slavery in human history than today, not just figuratively. also, as many note, wage workers give more labour today than serfs ever did. this is why a linear "historical materialist" outlook is inherently corrupted in my opinion. as for justifying slavery, engels does this in anti-duhring:
<"We should never forget that our whole economic, political and intellectual development presupposes a state of things in which slavery was as necessary as it was universally recognised. In this sense we are entitled to say: Without the slavery of antiquity no modern socialism." [anti-duhring, part 2, chapter 4]
if we look at contemporary anthropology, we of course see that majesties like the great pyramids were created by skilled wage workers, not slaves. what then is the cause of slavery? certainly not an imperative to production, lest capital would request slave labour as its means. the issue with economistic thinking is imagining everything as a means to an end, rather than seeing that some things as ends in themselves.

>>2379497
>what then is the cause of slavery?
The only way to answer that is that slavery must have to do with what you said about political power being the social subject

>>2379758
in the indian caste system for example, "caste" (वर्ण) can be transliterated as varṇa, which means "colour". the 4 castes are then based on this order (e.g. manusmirti). there is a material basis, but the division of labour itself is contingent on prejudicial factors (the same caste system is promoted by plato in "republic", based on "metals" within a person's soul). its the same way that what we call "capitalism" is in some way inherently "western", even if a global system. thats why as henry ford writes in "the international jew", that jews excel in mercanrile affairs, so are adaptive to capitalism, yet its for this very cause that they are hated, like any immigrant who "takes" a person's job. to over-conform to expectations is to encounter an exclusion based on inclusion, so this speaks to something more. why can you never eradicate racism from capitalism? if youre poor, they blame your race, if you are rich, they blame your race. as far as i see, there is no great difference between class and race; so then, is capitalism a caste system? i would say so. its this irreducible element which then makes class position a contingency rather than necessity.

this song by john lennon, "working class hero" also gives us the truth; that class is a reality most internalised by those most subject to it; "they hate you if youre clever, and despise a fool". class means you are guilty either way. this is why i think there will never be a working class revolution either, because once you believe in the identity, you become bound by it. stalin's enslaving notions of "proletarianisation" highlight this fact. the best servant is a proud servant. this is all you get on the bottom; bragging rights for how much you break your back for your masters.

>>2379497
You know absolutely nothing about reality and technology, having replaced it with ideology and the most insane Germanic conceits. For one, the ancients certainly did not build androids, and only had the vaguest conception of such a machine.
One thing that should be kept in mind is that the writing that comes down did not have a genre of "science" or "science fiction" or "applied sciences" as we have it today. The naturalist was in part a philosopher and another part a polymath that integrated what we know as physics, chemistry, biology, anatomy, zoology, and various other disciplines that would today be conflated as "Earth sciences". There were also very few people who became naturalists, since it wasn't a field of writing that produced obvious benefits or outcomes. The kind of writing that would lead to mechanization and the production of machines was something for the lower classes to work out, none of which survives and only fragments of which were present in the rare engineer or philosopher who was really important like Archimedes. You can see in Archimedes mechanical knowledge that wouldn't be reproduced for centuries, but it was all in this one guy who was too busy building those machines to take on students or create a school. There is also nothing like our concept of schooling or the university. The only thing that is sort of like that is Plato's Academy, whose function was really to reproduce an aristocratic faction rather than the functions universities took on.

>what then is the cause of slavery?
Slavery as a practice can be found in very primitive societies. It was known to the American Indians of North America, and very prevalent among the Maya, Aztec, and Inca who left behind records and saying regarding slavery as an institution. The institution of slavery is necessary for slavery as a practice to persist and be valued as anything other than an ad hoc domination of some person by another. The dominance of wives by the men is only realized by institutions upholding patriarchal society, and without that, patriarchy as a sentiment or a "just so fact" has little going for it.

If your argument is that only "bad" people would enslave others, or that there was some primordial sin that allowed slavery to exist in the world, you do not understand slavery as a situation, let alone as an institution. Germanics use this language to confuse deliberately everything about slavery, because they hold freedom in the genuine sense in the utmost contempt.

So far as there is a "singular origin" of the slave power, which is to say the institution of slavery, it originates in ritual sacrifice and the exultant celebration of such. There are no slaves without a lowest class subjected to the utmost depravities humans are capable of. Without a lowest class, there is nothing real to enforce the status of slavery that is clear and present. Slavery as a story or narrative has no substance, and in practice, if a slave is to be employed in an useful work, the slave requires enough autonomy to be allowed to do the thing the master wants. This meant that unless you were one of the slaves selected to be tortured for the amusement of the master, or a slave punished severely to set the example which was the moral education of slaves, you had some existence apart from the master, and it wasn't necessary or desirable for the master to invade that space for the sake of feeling "bigga". The Germanic only understands "bigga", because the Germanic is the dumbest of animals and a natural slave to their conceits. This came about because the Germans were never great slavers, never great conquerors, and envied the empires that did conquer and have slaves, colonies, and effective models of exploitation. The only thing Germans understand is drinking, raping, killing, fomenting bullshit religious wars as an excuse for those things, and arranging famines and ritual sacrifices of their own people because their stupid race can't stop themselves from killing each other before they decided to shit up all of Europe and then the world. Every aspect of their verbiage is disgusting and I can't stand their stupid smugness and insistence to lecture other cultures about things members within those cultures understand very well in their own history and knowledge handed down by their families. They do this to everyone and it's the most insulting garbage, yet they're getting away with it because they installed themselves in the institutions. What an insidious and disgusting race.

Anyway, there wasn't an ulterior motive or necessity to slavery, like the master would surely die if they didn't have a slave contract to feel like they're in charge. Most societies didn't have nearly enough slaves to do all of the labor to be done, and Rome was not exceptional on this. The Romans employed the freedman who was a former slave but had legal status, and freeborn citizens worked all of the time on various projects, typically disregarded by history since there wasn't a whole lot for them to produce. In every society that practiced slavery, the slaves were an alien population that was in excess of what they considered the actual society, and in principle all of the slaves could be exterminated and life would continue much as it had before. The slaves were a claim on wealth and value that masters had no reason to exterminate so wantonly, and the openly democidal aims of the later eugenic creed were both impossible to implement and too monstrous to consider even for the regularly brutal ancients. It may be odd to someone who is Germanic brained, but most humans do not particularly enjoy the torture and extermination of other humans, and find it even harder without having a particularly good reason—an ACTUAL reason—for such a course of action, which would have to be done manually and for no apparent benefit. The slaves are not going to rebel most of the time, and have nothing but their own bodies to rebel with, with no notion of what a society without slavery meant. It really starts not even with eugenics or the technical possibility of exterminating large numbers of humans quickly with no possibility of hiding, but with this Germanic philosophy that intended the democidal, Absolute impulse not just for slaves but for all of the world, all humans, against any concept of humanism civilization might have held. The eugenists took this philosophy, saw how it could be purposed for their mission, and intensified all of its monstrosities to the maximum. Then their religion was purified in the late 20th century, and we're presently living through the results of that. What is happening today is a very new thing, unprecedented in human history, and that is one reason why the ruling ideas violently shout that nothing new is possible and insist that we must relitigate 1914 forever until "history is corrected".

Anyway my point wasn't that the ancients had no thought about money (I said the exact opposite), but that they had no equivalent of "economics" because technology remained mostly stable. The things you would purchase with money remained crops, swords, armor, buildings, the salaries of officers and bureaucrats, and so on. There wasn't any sense of investing in "technology" as a going concern of the state or the empire. At most the Empire considered surplus on the arts and letters a distraction or a way to pay off elites to write whatever they liked. That is still at core what science and university funding is; a way to distribute largesse to elites. The real difference is that in modernity, technological advance made a vast difference in what forces a state could bring to bear, in conflict, in production, and in how the subjects lived their daily life. These things changed very little over the centuries in the ancient world, and when they did change, the history emphasized which wars were fought, which men claimed power, and the particular policy of the ruler which was a response to the events of their reign. There wasn't the same thinking about a "system", in the way there were various "American systems" during the 19th century or the "systems" of modern commonwealths to manage these affairs in a new manner. There was a sense rulers had about how their society was arranged and what they had to do to continue the arrangement, but the overall aims of the system were constant because the Empire couldn't conceive of being much different than it was. What the Empire looked for was how to win their wars, and their foresight only could see more wars until the whole world was conquered, which was so far into the future that it was highly speculative to say what would change. Where there were speculations about such a situation, they were primarily philosophical or religious texts, which is what Republic is. Nothing like that society was anywhere near realization, and that wasn't the point of the book. The reality of human existence is that regardless of the "system" in place, the lives of human beings were the same. They still needed the same things, ate the same type of food, fought with weapons and tactics that advanced more by contact with rivals than any notion of technological progress, and the lives of most people were consigned to some type of slavery and no real purpose to existence. The thought and activity that corresponded to today's zeal for technological progress was found in religion, and Christianity is basically the religious form of Plato's Republic plus commentaries on it.

>>2383364
>the ancients certainly did not build androids, and only had the vaguest conception of such a machine.
hephaestus was a god of arts and crafts. it is said by hesiod that he even created woman herself. the notion of mechanical humanoids is also communicated in homers' iliad. my point is that to even have the concept of automaton speaks to a technical consciousness in the people. also, you are implicitly devaluing the magnificent work of the ancients based in modernist prejudice. if you sent back iphones to ancient greece, it wouldnt be as alien as you imagine, even if technically incomprehensible, the same way the automoble is just an improvement on the chariot.
>The naturalist was in part a philosopher
its no different today. there is no "pure" scientific research.
>There is also nothing like our concept of schooling or the university. The only thing that is sort of like that is Plato's Academy, whose function was really to reproduce an aristocratic faction rather than the functions universities took on.
are you this naive? look up "skull and bones society members", or better yet, look at the entrance fee for harvard. there is nothing "universal" in university.
>If your argument is that only "bad" people would enslave others, or that there was some primordial sin that allowed slavery to exist in the world, you do not understand slavery as a situation, let alone as an institution.
slavery always employed unskilled labour, so there was no material necessity for slavery; thats my argument. wage labour has always existed alongside slavery also, which depletes the marxist sophistics that in the past, all labour has been an object, rather than subject.
>There are no slaves without a lowest class subjected to the utmost depravities humans are capable of.
reading ancients speak of slaves doesnt come across as class domination, but objectification, or dehumanisation. thats why aristotle can speak of the injustices of poverty, while taking slavery for granted. its not a class concept, but a natural concept. also, reading homer, the only brutality inflicted against people is soldiers against soldiers, besides achilles' furious human sacrifice of 12 young boys to patrocles.
>So far as there is a "singular origin" of the slave power, which is to say the institution of slavery, it originates in ritual sacrifice and the exultant celebration of such.
not from what ive read. slavery appears to originate from debts, hence the term "debt slave". this was also the charge given against negroes in america. in "robinson crusoe", robinson is originally freed by portugese sailors, who acquire a negro slave from him, and claim that he may be freed given a certain amount of penance (i.e. 10 years). this is also in the bible, where jacob acts as a slave for 7 years, consecutively. so slavery has always had these sorts of conditions, like we may read in charlotte bronte's "jane eyre", where a maidservant was hired for a fixed time, only receiving allowances, besides the wage granted her for thr fulfilment of the term. in another english novel, frances hodgson's "the secret garden", we see in the master's joyful return, to give the peasants on his land a gold coin. they are not pardoned from a debt, but only temporarily immune. so slavery begins by this manner of dependence, which incurs a debt (which in feudalism, was actually payable, but today is not). if the ancients saw mortgage plans, they would say that this is literally slavery, for example.

>>2383418
>The thought and activity that corresponded to today's zeal for technological progress was found in religion, and Christianity is basically the religious form of Plato's Republic plus commentaries on it.
so in the end you are forced to agree with me, that capitalism is inherently protestant? lol.

>>2383502
the bants on that vid are legendary

Can someone explain to me the relationship between profit margin and determing the price of an item?

We all know that in "ideal" capitalism the price is set by considering cost of production and consumers willing to pay it. But how does it really work? That is to say: how inflated prices really are compared to their production cost? We saw that during the COVID pandemia prices rose, and afterwards stayed the same even though they should lower again. How does this work? How much profit is artificial?

>>2379497
>hephaestus even tell us that he created androids
lmao
>>2383502
>the same way the automoble is just an improvement on the chariot
yes nothing ever changes in fact change is impossible. zeno confirmed. communism btfo. we should all give up and become liberals. this is of course very serious and not a joke.

>>2384419
>yes nothing ever changes
things change; but the more things change, the more they stay the same. time is the moving image of eternity: λόγος
<"Now it was the [God's] nature to be eternal, but it isn’t possible to bestow eternity fully upon anything that is begotten. And so he began to think of making a moving image of eternity: at the same time as he brought order to the universe, he would make an eternal image, moving according to number, of eternity remaining in unity. This number, of course, is what we now call “time.” [plato - timaeus, 37d]
<"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." [ecclesiastes 1:9]
>>2384329
>We all know that in "ideal" capitalism the price is set by considering cost of production and consumers willing to pay it. But how does it really work? That is to say: how inflated prices really are compared to their production cost?
adam smith proposes that market prices (determined by supply and demand) equilibrate toward their costs of production (natural price), over a certain period. this is also marx's view, which is a presupposition granted to him by special reference to the ricardian thomas tooke's work "history of prices" in which he attempts to combat the view that prices are determined by the money supply, and looks at the elements of production instead, in order to ground a labour theory of value. if we take this classical understanding then, a commodity's production cost is its "real price" to which everything gravitates. the point on inflation is what keynes wrote; that it exists as a tax, but a tax on whom? keynes generalises the phenomena, but from the market we see all prices rise except the wage. inflation then is not the raising of value, but the diminishing of the value of the wage. if wages were adjusted for inflation for example, prices would level out to a more acceptable level. "artificial" profits then do not occur from over-pricing commodities (which is rent, not profit), but decreasing the value of the wage, or exploiting labour.

Can someone explain what Anwar Shaikh and real economics is about?

>>2384794
as adam smith says,
<"Labour alone, therefore, never varying in its own value, is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared. It is their real price; money is their nominal price only." [wealth of nations, chapter 5]
anwar shaikh maintains this distinction, between "real" and "nominal" value. he makes this argument, which relates to my earlier comment upon inflation lowering the real wage of workers:
<"Finally, if buying prices remained unchanged at pcn= 0.7, pir= 5.25 while sell-ing prices were doubled to pcn= 1.4, pir= 10.50, nominal profits would be boosted because sales would be doubled while costs remained unchanged. If workers are unable to maintain their real wage because they are unable to raise their money wages to match the new higher prices, then the fall in their real wage would expand the surplus product in the next round. This can be important in practice when inflation serves to reduce the real wage […] That is to say, real profits adjusted for inflation would be unchanged [.] The foregoing exercises lead to a simple rule for measuring economic profits. First, derive nominal economic profits by applying the same current-period prices to material and labor inputs as to outputs. Second, derive real economic profits by deflating nominal profits by the general price index, whose level will itself depend on the period chosen to be the base […] As noted, these are adjustments designed to distinguish real economic profit from nominal profit." [anwar shaikh - capitalism: competition, conflict, crises - chapter 6, part 3, section 2-3]
put most simply, the real economy measures the purchasing power of wages. wages can "rise" in price, but have less value; this then shows the difference. anwar also appears to be part of "the new school", which michael hudson is part of.

todd mcgowan explains economic value as a "negative" magnitude expressed as sublimity. the "inutility" or "disutility" of an item is the measure of its value to todd, where the the commodity form itself acts as a lacanian "objet a" or german anstoß, whereby a medium simultaneously impedes an object, as it realises it. the function of packaging for an item thus obscures the use-value content, so in opening a package, the value itself is eradicated. the inacessibility of the object is the conservation of its value, thus. the commodity can therefore be separated between two terms; its pleasure and enjoyment - pleasure to freud is finite, while enjoyment (or "drive") exceeds pleasure (the death drive compels us to self-destruction for example, so value can be understood as a signifier which demands our sacrifice, but is itself only the becoming of its purchase). todd links this to marx's division between "necessary" and "surplus" labour. that which exceeds necessity is a commodity's surplus value, which is expressed as sublime emptiness, to todd. this is realised in consumption, where the capitalist can only realise value by appealing to the unconscious. to todd therefore, there are 3 aspects of the commodity: its being in-itself (use-value), its mediated packaging (objet a) and das ding/empty singularity (value).

todd's message then is that capitalists attempt to sell disutility as utility, which must be recognised in its reversal. this is also where todd criticises marx, as a thinker who constitutes value by a commodity's use (where todd has previously called marx a "right-wing" thinker for attempting to overcome alienation). todd then defends the form of value, but seeks to bring it into social recognition, as a lacking subjectivity. todd's speculative project may then perhaps be a post-capitalist commodity production.

i similarly defend the form of value, but seek to shift its subjectivity, so am sympathetic to todd. capital is the god of the age, but we will have new gods in the future. the error of utopianism is attempting to abolish our alienation in place of immediacy, since in this, there can be no self-conception, and so no knowledge. knowledge depends upon a barrier to knowledge, ironically. the mind is only a medium, therefore.

Any good modern books (made after 2000s) about political economy, economy of socialist society and general economics?

>>2390777
Finally it happened, a poster more deranged than Smith poster has entered the chat.

j.m. keynes mentions silvio gesell with glowing praise in his "general theory" (1936). he says that gesell is the positive thinker who transcends the marxian doctrine:
<"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]
gesell himself appears to be an anti-communist proudhonist, promoting "the new economic order" as a "third possibility" between capitalism and state socialism. what then, is this "order"?
<"The economic order here discussed is a natural order only in the sense that it is adapted to the nature of man [.] a man is to be free to act as his nature dictates, religion, custom and law must extend him their protection when, in his economic life, he is guided by justified egoism-when he obeys the impulse of self- preservation given him by nature [.] The Natural Economic Order must, therefore, be founded upon self-interest [.] In the Natural Economic Order founded upon egoism everyone must be assured the full proceeds of his own labour, and must be allowed to dispose of these proceeds as he thinks fit [.] By the Natural Economic Order we mean [that] leadership falls to the fittest, an order in which all privileges are abolished, in which the individual, obeying the impulse of egoism, goes straight for his, aim, undisturbed [.] The Natural Economic Order might also be called the "Manchester System", the economic order which has been the ideal of all true lovers of freedom-an order standing by itself without intervention from outside, an order in which the free play of economic forces would rectify the blunders of State-Socialism and short-sighted official meddling [.] The economists forgot, or did not wish to see, that for a natural development the proletariat must be given the right of reconquering the land with the same weapons by which it was taken from them. Instead of this, the Manchester economists appealed to the State [.] They did not know that money makes interest the condition of its services, that commercial crises, the deficit in the budget of the earning classes and unemployment are simply effects of the traditional form of money. The Manchester ideals and the gold standard are incompatible. In the Natural Economic Order, Free-Land and Free-Money win eliminate the unsightly, disturbing, dangerous concomitants of the Manchester system, and create the conditions necessary for a truly free play of economic forces [.] Natural selection in its full, miraculous effectiveness is then restored […] The Natural Economic Order will be technically superior to the present, or to the communistic order." [the natural economic order, 1918 preface]
gesell's anti-communism is developed here:
<"Bolshevism or communism may be possible in a primitive state of society, such as is still found in rural parts of Russia, but such prehistoric economic forms cannot be applied to a highly developed economic system founded on the division of labour. The European has outgrown the tutelage inseparable from communism. He must be free not alone from capitalistic exploitation, but also from meddling official intervention, which is an integral part of social life based on communism. For this reason we shall experience failure after failure in the present attempts at nationalising industry. The communist, the advocate of the system of common property, stands at the extreme right wing, at the entrance-door of social development. Communism is therefore the most extreme form of reaction. The Natural Economic Order, on the contrary, is the programme of action, of progress, of the fugleman on the extreme left. Transitional stages, merely, lie between. [the new economic order's] ideal is the ideal of the personality responsible for itself alone and liberated from the control of others-the ideal of Schiller, Stirner, Nietzsche and Landauer." [the natural economic order, 1920 preface]
we may then read of his proudhonist anti-marxism:
<"Proudhon, indeed, has not been entirely forgotten, but he has never been properly understood. If his advice had been understood and acted on, there would now be no such thing as capital [.] No capitalist is afraid of [marx's] theory, just as no capitalist is afraid of the Christian doctrine; it is therefore positively an advantage to capital to have Marx and Christ discussed as widely as possible, for Marx can never damage capital." [part 1, introduction]
gesell's economic criticism of marx is from gesell's own perspective; that "surplus-value" is just a form of rent or capital-interest (where he later says that all deductions of rent and interest confer the value from the labour of the capitalist - or in more classical terms, what is derivable as a revenue from the employment of stock - or what is returned from marx's notion of "cost-price"). "profit" to gesell is a superfluous category. this is given from his further comments against marx:
<"Marx succumbs to a popular fallacy and holds that capital consists of material goods. For Proudhon, on the contrary, interest is not the product of material goods, but of an economic situation, a condition of the market. Marx regards surplus-value as spoil resulting from the abuse of a power conferred by ownership. For Proudhon surplus-value is subject to the law of demand and supply. According to Marx, surplus-value must invariably be positive. For Proudhon the possibility of negative surplus-value must be taken into consideration. (Positive surplus-value is surplus-value on the side of supply, that is, of the capitalist, negative surplus-value is surplus-value on the side of labour)." [part 1, introduction]
what gesell appears to be implying is that surplus-value is a relationship created by the circulation of money; that profit is not accumulation, but conditional privation, and therefore monopoly. this indeed is the logic of rents, yet rents cannot command production, but only enforce extraction. this is where the positivity of profit must be understood. gesell's focus on money thus shows how he sees effective demand determining rates of interest and production (where if interest was lowered, production would increase, therefore abolishing surplus, and so capital), which goes toward keynes' point.

keynes reverses the classical postulate that "supply creates its own demand" by seeking to increase this proudhonist "negative surplus" to foster market solutions. as we may even read from william petty's "verbum sapienti" (1665) however, the suggestion for public use of labour (ch. 10) carries the implication that there is a limited supply based in heightened demand - the disequilibrium between supply and demand is even characterised by petty in an outline of increased labour power produced from "arts" (machines). in sharp wit, he says that one man may produce the labour of five, therefore performing the acts vainly sought by polygamy. this shows then that between men's employment and their possibility, there is lacking potential. a difficulty of the capitalist imagination then, is in conceiving of a natural decline in aggregate demand based in sufficient supply of goods. what gesell and keynes really differ with marx on then, is seeing the limits of production as merely the constraints of consumption. over-production is underconsumption. what marx and the austrian school converge on then, is determining the marginal disutility of goods as a metric of equilibrium (keynes precisely sees the marginal disutility of capital producing business cycles, yet wants to expand their utility by heightening aggregate demand through monetary stimulation). gesell's "free money" paired with keynes' aggregate demand calculations then display either a "new liberalism" or "natural economic order", as it distances itself from either state socialism or lasseiz-faire. this is a self-described "third possibility":
<"The abuses of this epoch in the realms of Government are Fascism on the one side and Bolshevism on the other. Socialism offers no middle course, because it also is sprung from the presuppositions of the Era of Abundance, just as much as laissez-faire individualism and the free play of economic forces, before which latter, almost alone amongst men, the City Editors, all bloody and blindfolded, still piteously bow down. The transition from economic anarchy to a regime which deliberately aims at controlling and directing economic forces in the interests of social justice and social stability, will present enormous difficulties both technical and political. I suggest, nevertheless, that the true destiny of New Liberalism is to seek their solution." [j.m. keynes, "am i a liberal?", 1925]
we see a conceptual chain therefore, between a positive notion of value, toward increasing negativity. marx and the classicals locate profit as the fund of capital's expansion and mobilisation (positive supply). with the austrian school, we see value being a determination of diminished returns on produced goods, equalising the market at rates on this scale (decreasing demand). in gesell, we see value as a negative potential, given from the demand of labour against the constriction of money by rent and interest (negative supply). in keynes, we see debt itself become the dominant logic of value, based in deficit spending (accumulated negativity). today, this is how we understand value - as a circulating debt rather than a circulating portion of goods. has "new liberalism" then succeeded by shifting the very ontology of value (by revealing its essence as a negative magnitude)?

>>2391175
here's the true derangement,
i am smithposter 🫢

now, what is interesting in the development of gesell's emphasis on "unearned income" over profit as the source of exploitation, is that it leads to normative, rather than scientific, estimations as to these evils. for this purpose, this anon: >>2343354 correctly intuits the immanent antisemitism which attaches itself to a notion of parasitism via unproductive labour. as a point of exposition, we may read from the foundational text of german national socialism, rudolf jung's "der nationale sozialismus" (1919);
<"Pure-Land-Reformers [henry george, etc.] subscribe to the idea that ground-rent is the source of all present-day social evils; its total or partial confiscation for the benefit of the general public is, for them, sufficient enough to remedy all harm. We, on the other hand, share the view of the Free-Economists (Silvio Gesell) that interest also constitutes a form of unearned income, and deduce from this that a second course of action is still required: the breaking of interest-slavery. This shall be brought about through monetary- or currency-reform." [der nationale sozialismus, "abolition of unearned income", section a]
here, the national socialists expressly attach themselves to the ideas of gesell. if we compare the ideas of "unearned income" to smith's notion of the "necessary" faculty of unproductive labour, the difference becomes clear:
<"The labour of some of the most respectable orders in the society is, like that of menial servants, unproductive of any value, and does not fix or realize itself in any permanent subject; or vendible commodity, which endures after that labour is past, and for which an equal quantity of labour could afterwards be procured [.] Their service, how honourable, how useful, or how necessary soever, produces nothing for which an equal quantity of service can afterwards be procured." [wealth of nations, book 2, chapter 3]
smith then allows us to conceive of "necessary evil" (contradiction), while the utopianism of gesell and the nazis (and hudson) displays itself as an attempt to resolve contradiction, which seems to lead to disaster. waste, or excess, is then a necessary function of society. in psychoanalysis, this can be called the "unconscious"; a universal negativity which orients us by immanent signification.

In this article, the term ‘industrial policy’ refers to the aggregate of all policies undertaken by the state to influence the development, catch-up, and innovation of specific industries. According to this definition, industrial policy is a selective policy that focuses on specific industries, rather than a universal or functional policy applied broadly to most industries. The origins of this definition can be traced at least as far back as the theory of the developmental state.1

In contrast to this definition, some argue that industrial policy encompasses universal or functional policies such as strengthening infrastructure, promoting human capital investment, maintaining fair competition, and creating an efficient market environment. This alternative definition has two drawbacks: First, it tends to blur the boundaries between industrial policy and other policies such as investment policy, export policy, human resources policy, and even macroeconomic regulation. Second, it is susceptible to being co-opted by (neo)liberal economics, using the guise of universal policies to oppose selective industry policy.

In a 2023 working paper published by the US National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), several scholars, including the renowned economist Dani Rodrik, defined industrial policy as ‘those government policies that explicitly target the transformation of the structure of economic activity in pursuit of some public goal… a key characteristic is the exercise of choice and discretion by the public authorities, as in “We promote X but not Y”, though the latter part of this statement is typically left implicit’.2

In effect, what these scholars highlight is the role of selective industry policy in reshaping the division of labour within society. Similarly, in a speech delivered at the Brookings Institution in spring 2023, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan interpreted the Biden administration’s industrial and innovation strategy through the lens of selective industry policy: ‘A modern American industrial strategy identifies specific sectors that are foundational to economic growth, strategic from a national security perspective, and where private industry on its own isn’t poised to make the investments needed to secure our national ambitions’.3

The formulation and implementation of industrial policy are critical aspects of economic governance in China’s socialist market economy. Industrial policy is essential in achieving socialist production objectives, addressing market failures, and promoting high-quality economic development….

https://thetricontinental.org/wenhua-zongheng-2025-1-industrial-policy-chinese-characteristics/

Can economics cause mental illness? I have a theory that the Austrian school of economics makes people crazy. Many of its members had problems with depression, anxiety and other disorders. It's no coincidence that we see nutcases like Milei, Moldbug and Thiel emanating from this ideology.

>>2392113
well, the austrian case against the notion of reciprocity in exchange causes them to consider the world in constant disequilibrium (or governed by unequal exchange), which might reflect some imbalance in their subjectivity. the concept of reciprocal exchange is present in the writings of aristotle (nicomachaen ethics 5.5, lines 1-19), where the exchange of goods confers an equality between them, commensurated by the medium of exchange (which represents demand). reciprocity is then understood as an equality predicated on supply and demand to achieve a proportional ratio. aristotle uses the example of "5 beds = 1 house" for example, to show how prices converge by equal values in exchange.

put most simply, if 2 items have the same price, then they exchange for the same value. now, carl menger mischaracterises adam smith (principles of economics, chapter 4), by reproducing his argument, in effect. to smith, men begin exchanging by trading a surplus of one good for another - this is also marx's opinion (capital vol. 1, ch. 2). menger further fails to make the critical leap from mere "value" to the division of value between its contradictory aspects - also theorised by aristotle (topics 1.7) and xenophon (oikonomikos, book 1-3). marx equally sees (capital vol. 1, ch. 2) that trade is facilitated by this distinction. a commodity is then internally contradicted between these two aspects, which form their values in use and exchange. menger only sees commodities as use-values, so cannot bridge the gap. ùse-values are inherently unequal, while exchange-values are inherently equal.

the austrian school then builds itself upon the foundation of inequality, leading to failures to properly abstract social phenomena. keynes is a greater theorist in this way, since he builds from the marginalism of the neoclassical and austrian schools by linking aggregate demand to the relative purchasing power of the public.

steve keen appears to be another academic charlatan. he first admits that he hasn't read marx in over 30 years, and thinks that the grundrisse was inspired by hegel's "phenomenology of right" (which he also admits to never reading). he claims that to marx, the value of money was entirely relative (a false assertion, given marx's value form; michael heinrich also repeats this lie to preserve marxist dogmatism). keen as a professional economist has never read adam smith (the same as warren moseler), so thinks that the division of value between its use and exchange was invented by marx's hegelianism. sourcing from his acclaimed book "debunking economics", he further omits attribution of this dichotomy to smith - but as i have written: >>2374542 sir james steuart already described this dichotomy 9 years before (1767) and aristotle milennia before, with xenophon even earlier. steve keen's monstrous mischaracterisation of marx is also presented here; he says that to marx, profit is the surplus utility of a commodity over its exchange-value, and tries to extrapolate this to machines. his conclusion therefore, is that machines generate profits by surplus utility. of course, marx already dismisses this by drawing from smith's decomposition of value, between capital stock and labour employed. capital cannot add to its own value, yet increases the productivity of men (already discussed by petty in 1665). the decline in the value of commodities is the bounty of their usefulness. keen, in identifying profit with utility, mistakes classical analysis for neoclassical rhetoric. keen's conclusion is that a falling rate of profit means an inability to expand social production, when of course, the rate of profit falls precisely in proportion to expanded rates of production. so keen is amateurish at best and deceptive at worst.