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

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

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

Not reporting is bourgeois


File: 1759508669679.png (285.54 KB, 1280x963, ClipboardImage.png)

 

Previous thread: >>2298757

Links:

Previous Thread Archives
Thread 1 https://archive.ph/ROnpO
Thread 2 https://archive.ph/f29Po
Thread 3 https://archive.ph/GZj20

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

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

There need to be more totalitarian approaches to politecon, you cannot stay just economists, you need some revolutionary vigeur.

File: 1759509160117.png (546.62 KB, 736x415, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2501182
>jevons does comment on overproduction but only slightly. he makes no special place for it since to him, commodities equate at their marginal utilities and it would be contradictory to insist that a person would be motivated by inducing disutility (pain/loss) due to his axiom that men operate by the drive for pleasure.

But a crisis of overproduction isn't a personal choice. It's a social outcome resulting from competition between several firms to sell at lower and lower prices by producing commodities faster and faster through the introduction of more and more automation.

Its gonna be interesting to see how China responds to declining rate of profit. So far they haven't done anything novel that this or that capitalist state hasn't done in the past.

In a recent party meeting, they talked about "involution" or excessive race-to-the-bottom competition as causing declining profits and therefore hurting long term competitiveness, wages, employment etc. They called for more consolidation, letting uncompetitive firms die, and "quality competition".

How is class struggle supposed to happen in countries where the service sector is the biggest employer?

Is this thread still alive? because the previous one looked like it was just 1 poster

>>2507179
A wave of AI layoffs will give the tertiary sector their first taste of class consciousness.

>>2507186
Once you’re laid off you’re lumpen and now have reactionary interests, doubly so since you were labor aristocracy first.

>>2507189
TRVKE
Nothing good ever "just happens". Commies have to get off their ass and make good things happen. Otherwise the bad stuff just leads to more bad stuff.

>>2507186
I wasn’t even really thinking of the first world tech sector, I am thinking of places like Cape Verde or Jamaica where the only actual work is either directly serving tourists or selling trinkets to tourists

File: 1759510922928-0.png (78.14 KB, 898x262, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1759510922928-1.png (130.35 KB, 1600x1141, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2507189
also see post related

File: 1759511044457.png (94.88 KB, 870x423, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2507176
>So far they haven't done anything novel that this or that capitalist state hasn't done in the past.
pic related

>>2507179
Bourgeois dictatorships with dominant service sector are always the greatest imperialist. Therefore the precondition for revolution in these countries is for third world to rise up and destroy the imperialist economic basis upon which what the imperialists call "service workers" subsist.

Stalinist proletarian political economic textbook explains the inextricable link between what the bourgeoisie calls "services" and imperialism. As imperialism develop, unproductive "services" and FIRE takes forefront role in economy. This lack of productive development leads to degeneration of imperialist econonomy.
https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch20.htm
https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch15.htm

File: 1759518343970.jpg (16.34 KB, 400x225, Joseph-Stalin-1950.jpg)

>>2507147
well, these threads are presumably for the study or discussion of political economy, so it shouldnt be surprising when people discuss political economy…
>>2507168
jevons is still operating under say's law of the market:
<supply creates its own demand
>>2507165
in a totalitarian context (state monopoly) there is no more political economy (in the marxian sense), but only the directives of production and consumption. stalin also says here that in the case of full state ownership, all commodity production will cease:
>Elsewhere in Anti-Duhring Engels speaks of mastering "all the means of production," of taking possession of "all means of production." Hence, in this formula Engels has in mind the nationalization not of part, but of all the means of production, that is, the conversion into public property of the means of production not only of industry, but also of agriculture. It follows from this that Engels has in mind countries where capitalism and the concentration of production have advanced far enough both in industry and in agriculture to permit the expropriation of all the means of production in the country and their conversion into public property. Engels, consequently, considers that in such countries, parallel with the socialization of all the means of production, commodity production should be put an end to. And that, of course, is correct.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch03.htm

>>2507152
as i have demonstrated, there is literally no difference between men and machines in production except that men get paid a wage. similarly, to marx, slaves cannot produce, but only transfer value, because they are treated as property rather than as property-owners, while a worker is just a slave with a wage; a wage-slave:
>In slave labour, even that part of the working-day in which the slave is only replacing the value of his own means of existence, in which, therefore, in fact, he works for himself alone, appears as labour for his master. All the slave’s labour appears as unpaid labour. In wage labour, on the contrary, even surplus-labour, or unpaid labour, appears as paid. There the property-relation conceals the labour of the slave for himself; here the money-relation conceals the unrequited labour of the wage labourer.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch19.htm
we also see the wage configure labour as a rented product rather than a wholly bought product:
<The continuance of this relation demands that the owner of the labour-power should sell it only for a definite period, for if he were to sell it rump and stump, once for all, he would be selling himself, converting himself from a free man into a slave, from an owner of a commodity into a commodity.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm
further, this relationship of rent or interest acts as the temporal basis of capitalist exploitation, with the capitalist being a debtor to what is forwarded in credit:
>In all cases, therefore, the use-value of the labour-power is advanced to the capitalist: the labourer allows the buyer to consume it before he receives payment of the price; he everywhere gives credit to the capitalist.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm
i have addressed this point before in rebuking austrian economist hans hermann hoppe: >>2460758

to return to the point at hand, marx nowhere in all of his work ever implies that slaves can produce surplus value. here is a good blog post on the topic:
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2015/07/marx-on-slaves-as-fixed-capital.html
yet slaves labour, but as we see, labour has no value:
<Labour is the substance, and the immanent measure of value, but has itself no value.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch19.htm
to marx, only commodities possess value. thus, a slave (like any form of fixed capital) is a value, but cannot add to itself above its costs. but why? because its costs are not commodified, so do not take the form of value. this is not to imply that slaves are unproductive however, since machines are in themselves more productive than men, yet are said to not be able to produce values. if we take the notion then, that a slave's labour-power *becomes* valuable in the mode of a commodity, then the case is entirely symmetrical to machines. the difference of course is what marx may only consider in terms of the subjectivity of value's contract. lets read:
>In order that these objects may enter into relation with each other as commodities, their guardians must place themselves in relation to one another, as persons whose will resides in those objects, and must behave in such a way that each does not appropriate the commodity of the other, and part with his own, except by means of an act done by mutual consent. They must therefore, mutually recognise in each other the rights of private proprietors. This juridical relation, which thus expresses itself in a contract, whether such contract be part of a developed legal system or not, is a relation between two wills, and is but the reflex of the real economic relation between the two. It is this economic relation that determines the subject-matter comprised in each such juridical act. 
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch02.htm
<The historical conditions of its existence are by no means given with the mere circulation of money and commodities. It can spring into life, only when the owner of the means of production and subsistence meets in the market with the free labourer selling his labour-power. And this one historical condition comprises a world’s history.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm
<That which comes directly face to face with the possessor of money on the market, is in fact not labour, but the labourer. What the latter sells is his labour-power.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch19.htm
so then, value only appears within these *subjective* circumstances to marx, where value is "mutually recognised" (a la hegel) in its possibility of equivalence. the slave does not produce value, even with a wage fund, because he does not yet own himself, so as to sell himself. thus, there is zero qualitative difference between the instruments of production (since all labour is abstracted as investment capital), and all difference only exists in the realm of circulation, or exchange.

if we rightfully treat machines as slaves then, the possibility of granting them a wage would entail the value of their costs of repair; the same as an animal. marx fails to be consistent with his own theory in this regard then (in what smith and menger see as labour being "commanded") and he instead metaphysicalises human labour as a magical substance. it is one of marx's worst passages (criticised by cockshott as well). i deal with the topic of abstraction fully here: >>2488766
>Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate […] We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human […] We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal […] A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. 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.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm
this subjective element of "imagination" of course is immaterial to the process of production, as much as smith in the same way dismisses the labour of superintendence as adding to the exchange-value of commodities. here then, marx in assigning the uniqueness of man's labour fails. man is not unique, as he has previously admitted. lets read the grundrisse:
>The worker’s activity, reduced to a mere abstraction of activity, is determined and regulated on all sides by the movement of the machinery, and not the opposite. The science which compels the inanimate limbs of the machinery, by their construction, to act purposefully, as an automaton, does not exist in the worker’s consciousness, but rather acts upon him through the machine as an alien power, as the power of the machine itself.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch13.htm
he even says quite clearly here that man's consciousness is no object to the ends of production. value then, is not a relation within production, but only something in exchange, where labour is abstracted:
>the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value […] there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract […] When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are – Values.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
this is not a material relation, but purely social:
>The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition […] the value of commodities has a purely social reality […] So far no chemist has ever discovered exchange value either in a pearl or a diamond.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
i have spoken of marx's anti-physicalism here:
>>2489516
>>2489518
we may even see marx granting the possibility of "imaginary" value immanent to the price-form (money):
>Objects that in themselves are no commodities, such as conscience, honour, &c., are capable of being offered for sale by their holders, and of thus acquiring, through their price, the form of commodities. Hence an object may have a price without having value. The price in that case is imaginary, like certain quantities in mathematics.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm
if we deduce marx's hegelianism it is rather clear that value is a process of "recognition" between the owners of commodities. it is a subjective process, the same way value is only a value if it has a subjective utility:
>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
so then, why cant machines produce values? well, first of all they do produce values; values in use, and also values in exchange, just at a diminished rate (due to oversupply). the cost of its labour also equals what can be sold from its implementation, and so machines make money for capitalists, but not profits (this is confirmed by marginalists such as jevons, clark and bawerk). the reason they cant produce SURPLUS values is because theyre not paid a wage, which is because (1) machines cant subjectively receive wages or (2) voluntarily sell their labour. but this is also true for animals, yet animals are alive. machines are similarly a form of life and in many cases, of intelligence, yet they are not economic creatures the same way that we are. so then, marx's theory of value is subjective, and machines are not subjects. that is the most basic interpretation:
>…all the necessary factors of the labour process; its OBJECTIVE factors, the means of production, as well as its SUBJECTIVE factor, labour-power.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm
<That which comes directly face to face with the possessor of money on the market, is in fact not labour, but the labourer. What the latter sells is his labour-power.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch19.htm
a slave is an object, not a subject. 🤷🏻‍♂️😅🫠

>social construct

marx's theory of value indeed is a theory of social recognition. value is not a natural force or substance:
<The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition […] the value of commodities has a purely social reality […] So far no chemist has ever discovered exchange value either in a pearl or a diamond.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
if it was, you could measure it directly with instruments, like the chemist.

Hello, anons, I'm looking for book that actually explain how a socialist economy would work, I'm know of Cockshott's book, but there's any other book on the economics of socialism beside Cockshott?

>>2507515
Read publications from Communist States, not westoid pseuds.

>>2507563
thank you for this book

File: 1759539391166-0.png (133.05 KB, 474x335, porky_front_gun.png)

>>2507508
>if it was, you could measure it directly with instruments, like the chemist.
Personally, I measure it all the time. I fire any worker who doesn't make me more money per hour than I pay them per hour.

>>2507515
Soviets published a lot of them while they still existed. Ismail has upload quite a few of them online: https://archive.org/details/@ismail_badiou

>>2507856
you can empirically verify production costs
you cant empirically verify "value"

File: 1759570447366.png (125.61 KB, 498x573, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2508016
Yes, that is also what I tell the workers when they start to get uppity about "surplus value." I just shrug and I say "that doesn't exist LOL"

>>2508075
thats why youre a successful businessman and not a flailing humanities student or economics professor.

>>2508091
Between you and me? I'm scared. We need to see more unemployment. The wagies are starting to act like I need them more than they need me. That's not good!

>>2508099
maybe if you turn off the tap of welfare they will be coming back a bit more enthusiastically.
>>2508075
>>2508091
also, according to marx, the surplus utility of labour-power as a consumed commodity rightfully belongs to the capitalist who purchased it:
>If the labourer consumes his disposable time for himself, he robs the capitalist […] the consumption of the commodity belongs not to the seller who parts with it, but to the buyer, who acquires it. To you, therefore, belongs the use of my daily labour-power. But by means of the price that you pay for it each day, I must be able to reproduce it daily, and to sell it again […] The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working-day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possible, two working-days out of one.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm
<That which comes directly face to face with the possessor of money on the market, is in fact not labour, but the labourer. What the latter sells is his labour-power. As soon as his labour actually begins, it has already ceased to belong to him; it can therefore no longer be sold by him. 
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch19.htm
so then, the wage is the true price of labour-power, but as yet, marx sees that the working day is still variable according to the law of the market, and so is still relative to the rights of the worker as a seller of commodities:
<On the other hand, the peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its consumption by the purchaser, and the labourer maintains his right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working-day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antinomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm
so then, in the realm of equal right, the price of labour is constant, but its duration of utility is variable. these are the terms set by the labourer himself as possessor of the commodity, for to charge beyond the wage would be to exploit the capitalist, yet limiting the working day also means a lack of exploitation to the worker:
<I demand the normal working-day because I, like every other seller, demand the value of my commodity. 
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm

>>2508103
>maybe if you turn off the tap of welfare they will be coming back a bit more enthusiastically.
I don't want them to be so enthusiastic as to start getting violent

>>2507508
>slaves cannot produce, but only transfer value, because they are treated as property rather than as property-owners
I'm not sure that's accurate.

>>2508218
you appear to lack literacy because i have explained the reason for this in my expanded post. but otherwise, you are free to give a citation of marx considering slave labour capable of producing surplus value. i have searched for it and cannot find any, so the case is clear. you can also read this for brevity's sake:
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2015/07/marx-on-slaves-as-fixed-capital.html

>>2508230
what about horses

>>2508574
Smith anon has made it clear over several threads that he thinks value isn't real but also that the activities of machines, slaves, and livestock produce value just as much as free human labor.

File: 1759640125413.jpeg (502.17 KB, 828x896, IMG_1405.jpeg)

The 70s marxists had it right automation will end the worker identity we onto have idipol left

File: 1759648339329.jpg (78.67 KB, 611x960, automation.jpg)

>>2509035
delusional. every machine requires maintenance, materials, etc. automation is not a magic bullet. robots are not any time soon going to screw in every lightbulb, change every diaper, pave every road, empty every septic tank, pick every fruit, remove every bullet, etc. and a lot of the "AI" shit happening right now is error prone and way more costly and environmentally unsustainable than just feeding and paying a worker to do the same thing.

>>2508574
animals and slaves are both fixed capital to marx:
>The slave-owner buys his labourer as he buys his horse. If he loses his slave, he loses capital that can only be restored by new outlay in the slave-mart.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm
>>2508577
>value doesnt exist
it exists as a social abstraction, not as a natural relation. it is subjective - or in marx's case, a subjectivity:
>The person objectifies himself in production, the thing subjectifies itself in the person
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm
>the relations connecting the labour of one individual with that of the rest appear, not as direct social relations between individuals at work, but as what they really are, material relations between persons and social relations between things.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
>free human labour
you mean "wage labour"? i have already explained what undergirds your mysticism of the wage-slave.
>>2507165
peep keynes 👀
>Nevertheless the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of the production and distribution of a given output produced under conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire.
https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300071h/gerpref.html

File: 1759660232223.jpg (27.21 KB, 250x296, Jew_-_Parasit.jpg)

>>2509035
without labour (martyrdom), marxists have no identity, which is why they have jumped from the progress of the first world to the regress of the third world. fascism, i have previously defined as a type of "trade union consciousness" in the words of lenin. its a sorelian heroism attached to the mundanity of labour, as opposed to the decadence of things like "financialisation" which moishe postone sees as the root of fascist antisemitism. its the workerist focus on "productivity" and "earned income". as i have previously cited, silvio gesell was celebrated by national socialist rudolf jung for replacing the idea of industrial profit for usury and interest. gesell himself says that he was chiefly inspired by proudhon, who was a massive antisemite himself. modern advocates of "earned income" like michael hudson focus on the parasitism of the unproductive, and hudson is highly esteemed by contemporary fascists like haz al-din (whose preoccupation is the undermining of service workers by their active dehumanisation, in duginist style). it all imitates the slave morality of early christianity, even as engels himself reports:
>The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement. Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both Christianity and the workers’ socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in this world, in a transformation of society. Both are persecuted and baited, their adherents are despised and made the objects of exclusive laws, the former as enemies of the human race, the latter as enemies of the state, enemies of religion, the family, social order. And in spite of all persecution, nay, even spurred on by it, they forge victoriously, irresistibly ahead.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/
the recent meme of "treatlerism" also shows the idea that having comfort is immoral, and so first world citizens are supposed to whip themselves for this original sin of being the winners of history. remember what was written on the gates of auchwitz:
"Arbeit Macht Frei" ("work will set you free")
so then, this marxist pathology has been sublimated in recent times by fascist third-worldism. the fetish of labour as "value" is what murray rothbard rightfully considers as an unconditional token of legitimacy to the protestant work ethic. if you suffer, youre good. if you leisure, youre evil. thats the unifying concept.

>>2508577
>>2508574
From the first page of the Critique of the Gotha Programme by Karl Marx:

First part of the paragraph: "Labor is the source of all wealth and all culture."

Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power. The above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct insofar as it is implied that labor is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments. But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.

Let us now leave the sentence as it stands, or rather limps. What could one have expected in conclusion? Obviously this:

"Since labor is the source of all wealth, no one in society can appropriate wealth except as the product of labor. Therefore, if he himself does not work, he lives by the labor of others and also acquires his culture at the expense of the labor of others."

Instead of this, by means of the verbal river "and since", a proposition is added in order to draw a conclusion from this and not from the first one.

Now do not ask me whether wealth and value are the same, I do not know. Goodbye.

>>2509325

Arbeit Macht Frei is a thoroughly Marxist concept. One must be able to dissociate the meaning of the phrase with the perversion of it by the Nazis.

>>2509336
mask off moment 🤣

>>2509332
wealth, or riches = utility
value = exchange
there is no exchange in marx's "co-operative society", so there is wealth, or riches, without value. ricardo:
>'A MAN is rich or poor,' says Adam Smith, 'according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life.' Value, then, essentially differs from riches, for value depends not on abundance, but on the difficulty or facility of production. The labour of a million of men in manufactures, will always produce the same value, but will not always produce the same riches. By the invention of machinery, by improvements in skill, by a better division of labour, or by the discovery of new markets, where more advantageous exchanges may be made, a million of men may produce double, or treble the amount of riches, of 'necessaries, conveniences, and amusements,' in one state of society, that they could produce in another, but they will not on that account add any thing to value; for every thing rises or falls in value, in proportion to the facility or difficulty of producing it, or, in other words, in proportion to the quantity of labour employed on its production. 
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/ricardo/tax/ch20.htm


Unique IPs: 26

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