Besides Cockshott and maybe Richard Wolff, are there any good, academic, Marxist economists who are worth reading and can be used in debates to defend Marxism?
>>2532234>academic Marxistlol marx and engels were against academics and cockshott doesnt even understand the law of value
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_21.htm Marx is debunked
>can be used in debates to defend Marxism?
Because that's debates are about, finding things to use so you can be the winner.
Maybe Alexey Safronov. A Russian expert on Soviet economics. If you want to learn about the Soviet planned economy, he's the guy.
>>2532284Here we go again
>>2532234You forgot about marxist economist Michael Roberts, here's the link to his blog:
https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/blog/ Richard wolf and cockshot both suck ass. Scientific Socialist knowledge comes from Communist state textbooks, not phony pseuds
>>2532234Umm, Heinrich Grossman has an interesting perspective but not exactly modern.
never mention Cockshott and Wolff in the same sentence ever again.
>>2532385Is there any translation of his book about the economy of the USSR?
>>2532234In English, a few come to mind:
Michael Roberts,
Andrew Kliman,
Alan Freeman,
Nick Potts,
Guglielmo Cachedi,
Stavros Mavroudeas,
Not everyone in this list agrees with each on all points; Marxism as school of political economy actually has quite a few different perspectives within it.
>>2534156>the MMTNeoliberals: "we're just doing basic Econ 101"
MMT: (taking shitlibs who stand on their head and forcing them to stand on their feet, as Marx did to Hegel's moon logic idealism and utopianism)
Good suggestions everyone. I'd like to add Michael Hudson and Victor Yakovlenko to that list
Michael Pettis
>>2532243>lol marx and engels were against academicsis this why Dr. Karl Marx got a PhD in his youth, and spent years researching at the British Museum when writing Capital? Is this why Capital has a rich bibliography full of primary and secondary sources?
Marx and Engels weren't "against academics" but against its class character, and how it was used to browbeat the working class. This did not mean they were anti-intellectuals who were against any kind of scientific methodology, as the vulgarizers sometimes suggest.
>>2534598yes, this guy. Plus that thomas hardin guy
Academics all hate Marx. They all prefer Foucault because he talks about autists or bipolar queers or sone shit.
>cockshott
>>2537873>everything that goes against muh idol is le baitCockshott's model for planning is basically unviable, alongside central planning just being generally inefficient. Of course academics and their sycophants have no idea what social planning actually entails.
>>2537941a. low-energy pushover propagating unpractical theories far before the conditions for their implementation have been reached because his ilk refuse to intervene to connect the tissue
AKA the definitional "ultraleftist", or petulant, yet comfortable, adult-baby.
Join a union, baby.
Oppose reaction, baby.
Collaborate where possible, baby.
Lead the struggle while educating the class, baby.
You can read and write and have the reserves to procrastinate; stop being an adult-baby.
See you out there I'm betting on mainline Marxism-Leninism-Maoism with cybernetic socialist characteristics. Prove me wrong, blog connoisseur.
>>2537941>planning is le inefficientthe Wehrmacht disagrees
>>2532243>>2537941if you're going to call cockshott wrong you should at least make some kind of argument
I disagree with cockshott on specific things. for example, cockshott denies that exchange-value itself is a use-value. I'm with marx on that - money is useful
>>2533095Communist propaganda is science. Communist propaganda > capitalist propaganda.
https://monthlyreview.org/articles/crisis-of-socialism-and-effects-of-capitalist-restoration/Cockshott is anti-Communist pseud
>>2538083>my propaganda good your propaganda badis this the intellectual prowess of the left?
>>2538067he severely misunderstands ltv and thinks planning is about calculating labor instead of a demonstration of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.
as maohead said his theory is unpractical and ahead of the objective conditions. he wrote tans in the 80s as a recommendation for the ussr but published late with no theory of how to implement it in countries that are not already dtop
it also isolates this suggestion to a national policy with no regard for international relations or imperialism
essentially his argument is in line with regular liberal idealism of trying to convince other bourgeois academics that rational planning is possible by proving it with math which completely ignores that bourgeois society isn't rational and why that might be. its been objectively demonstrable that the industrial revolution has enabled abundance since its beginning, the point however is not to merely record this fact but to change it
hes also a massive chauvinist and doesn't understand dialectics or unequal exchange and denies the role of consciousness in revolution, and all three of these positions rely on extremely narrow readings and bad faith semantic interpretations
and this has all been discussed here previously to great extent
>>2532243<We are still in need of technicians, agronomists, engineers, chemists, architects (…) But apart from the specialists, among whom I also include schoolteachers, we can get along perfectly well without the other “intellectuals.” The present influx of literati and students into the party, for example, may be quite damaging if these gentlemen are not properly kept in check.Would you like to explain in which of these two groups you see Cockshott and yourself, respectively.
>>2538110>he severely misunderstands ltv and thinks planning is about calculating labor instead of a demonstration of the tendency of the rate of profit to fallMarx and Engels also argued for reckoning in labor time under socialism. And Cockshott also studies the rate of profit and makes use of organic composition of capital in that analysis. You make an either/or claim here without logical foundation and in blatant ignorance of the works of the writers you are pretending to compare here.
>>2538152sorry that your fav youtuber is a pseud
>>2538085Communist ideology is irrefutable. Bourgeois ideology is hollow. Lenin teaches us that since there can be no talk of an independent ideology formulated by the working masses themselves in the process of their movement, the only choice is — either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course (for mankind has not created a “third” ideology, and, moreover, in a society torn by class antagonisms there can never be a non-class or an above-class ideology). Hence, to belittle the socialist ideology in any way, to turn aside from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology.
>>2534160Unfortunately no. His latest book is very good though. Here are some images of his book "The great Soviet economy".
Commodity production is probably the key link, to both the stagnation of the planned economy, and the emergence of a bourgeois liquidationist tendency.
>>2538110>he severely misunderstands ltv and thinks planning is about calculating labor instead of a demonstration of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.how is that at all relevant and useful? the need for planning is found in Neurath. it is made even more urgent by the climate situation
>as maohead said his theory is unpractical and ahead of the objective conditions. he wrote tans in the 80s as a recommendation for the ussr but published late with no theory of how to implement it in countries that are not already dtopdoesn't this mean it's behind the material conditions? anyway yes TANS is not really a recipe for the future. there's lots of stuff left unsaid. this is a problem everyone writing theory faces. you either give too much detail in which case you're a utopian, or too little and people will call you out for vagueposting as you and maohead are
>it also isolates this suggestion to a national policy with no regard for international relations or imperialismunless you're a trot you should know that revolution everywhere all at once is extremely unlikely. there's also an entire chapter in TANS on foreign trade
>essentially his argument is in line with regular liberal idealism of trying to convince other bourgeois academics that rational planning is possible by proving it with mathbut anon you need the math on your side. you can't argue with math. the math tells us why the market is shit. it also tells us why planning is superior
>hes also a massive chauvinist and doesn't understand dialectics or unequal exchangeunequal exchange doesn't exist. most value is created in the North. only someone unfamiliar with Capital could claim otherwise. this gets even funnier when unequaloids throw jargon like "superprofits" around, not realizing the meaning is the complete opposite of what they think
>denies the role of consciousness in revolutionlarge groups of people obey bulk statistics. sorry not sorry
>>2538424>Commodity production is probably the key link, to both the stagnation of the planned economy, and the emergence of a bourgeois liquidationist tendency.the move away from planning in kind towards kozhraschet, especially the Liberman reforms, seem like the most obvious culprit. this is where we get memes like "make le one giant screw"
>>2538515commodity production itself is not the issue. it's that you have commodity production for means of production, within production itself rather than only towards the external market
>>2538543>commodity production itself is not the issueto who? it is a problem to marx.
>>2534156>monetary theoriesmarx was against the existence of money
>>2538067>if you're going to call cockshott wrong you should at least make some kind of argumentwhy would expect honest and open debate on this forum full of cultist retards?
>>2538110>he SEVERELY misunderstands ltvanother baseless comment.
>>2532234>Richard WolffCockshott is utopian trash but this guy is the modern Marx.
>>2532428>comes from Communist state textbookUSSR era textbooks arent exactly modern.
>>2538567why is cockshott trash, exactly?
>>2538571Hes a dogmatist who believes blindly in labor theory of value and not even a real economist.
>>2538572are you a "real economist"?
and whats the issue in his theory of value?
>>2538573>are you a "real economist"?Its not about me but yes I have bachelors degree in economics.
>and whats the issue in his theory of value?Completely outdated and debunked model.
>>2538574what is outdated or debunked about it?
>>2538576Key Reasons LTV is Seen as Outdated
<Shift from labour-as-measure to subjective valueThe classical and Marxian schools treated value as something derived from labour (or “socially necessary labour time”).
<By contrast, the late-19th-century “marginalist” or “subjectivist” revolution argued that value arises from individual preferences, utility, scarcity and choice — not labour input.
<Thus the LTV’s attempt to explain price/value purely via labour becomes less compelling in a framework where value is inherently subjective and context‐dependent.Problems of measurement and abstraction
<One critique is that LTV struggles to provide a workable measure of “abstract labour” or to account for differences in skill, intensity, capital inputs, demand, utility, etc. For example, two goods requiring similar labour may command very different market prices.
<The subjectivist view sidesteps this by not relying on a uniform labour‐measure but instead focusing on the marginal utility to consumers and the scarcity/supply balance. Demand, utility and marginalism matter
<Modern mainstream economics sees the value of a good as influenced not just by how much labour went into it, but by how much it is wanted, how scarce it is, and what marginal benefit it provides to the user.
<This means that the labour‐input approach of LTV fails to fully capture why some goods are valued much more highly than others that may have required more labour. (The classic “diamond-water” paradox: water is vital, yet diamonds are far more expensive — because marginal utility and scarcity dominate.) Theory of prices rather than just value
<Mainstream economics places more emphasis on price formation, equilibrium between supply and demand, and marginal analysis, rather than attempting to anchor value in labour inputs alone. The subjectivist revolution shifted attention from cost/embodied labour to preferences and market interactions.
<Because of that shift, the LTV is seen as less useful or less central for explaining contemporary market phenomena.Historical evolution of economic thought
<The LTV was more prominent in classical economics (e.g., David Ricardo, Karl Marx) but fell into relative disuse in mainstream economics after the marginal revolution (late 1800s).
<The subjectivist revolution marked a paradigm shift in economics: value is derived from subjective human valuations rather than socialised labour time. As one source puts it: “The subjectivist or marginalist revolution … is widely thought … to constitute a major advance in thinking within the field of value theory.” >>2538550>marx was against the existence of moneyNope, he wasn't
>>2538550>it is a problem to marxcommodity production has particular traits, many of which are elaborated on in Capital. at no point, not even in Gothakritik, does Marx say that commodity production should be done away with, not even in higher-phase communism. before you go "b-but muh needs", wants and needs are different things
>>2538574>bachelors degree in economicsbachelors degree in bourgeois economics
>>2538586tell me anon, where do equilibrium prices come from? why does a car cost more than a carton of milk?
>inb4 muh supply and demandwe're talking about equilibrium prices - supply and demand are in equilibrium. so where do they come from?
>The classic “diamond-water” paradoxwhy do porkoid economists bring this up as some big gotcha when it actually strengthens the LTV?
>>2538601You haven't understood Marx.
>>2538603Source?
>>2538610>>2538597to marx, "labour-money" is NOT money, and its this item which he suggests be used in a communist society:
>Owen’s “labour-money,” for instance, is no more “money” than a ticket for the theatre.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm>For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm>>2538605to marx, there is NO commodity exchange in a communist society:
<Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers DO NOT EXCHANGE their products; JUST AS LITTLE does the labor employed on the products appear here as the VALUE of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm >>2538586<By contrast, the late-19th-century “marginalist” or “subjectivist” revolution argued that value arises from individual preferences, utility, scarcity and choice — not labour input. but labour itself is an essential factor in the economy, as jevons (1871) points out:
>>2495832labour entails a negative utility which is proportioned by the "final degree of utility" of its total product, and thus, the value of labour (paid in the wage) is given according to this equalisation, with a "surplus utility" of the labourer entailing higher wages by shorter working times. lengthening the working day expends labour at the cost of its diminished returns; a "surplus utility" given to the capitalist for an extended duration of labour. this is applicable to classical and marxian notions of surplus product, just in different language - so does not implode any existing frameworks (or results), but simply interprets them more scientifically.
<Thus the LTV’s attempt to explain price/value purely via labour becomes less compelling in a framework where value is inherently subjective and context‐dependent.well, as jevons also points out, ricardo presupposes a value in exchange to be a value in use to the purchaser; the same is done for marx, where labour is only (inter-)subjectively defined as a value by exchange.
<One critique is that LTV struggles to provide a workable measure of “abstract labour” or to account for differences in skill, intensity, capital inputs, demand, utility, etc.the measure is typically given by duration through the medium of the wage. if i work 8 hours for £80, my labour is worth £10/hr. similarly, if i work 4 hours for £80, my labour is worth £20/hr. if someone is paid more for less, the rate of their intensity is implied in this - jevons also concludes this by seeing that the utility of labour diminishes concurrently at the rate of labour by its duration and intensity. this formula is also marx's:
>The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it. <value (price): [q/p]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htmtherefore, if someone works 10 hours (q) and produces 100 of X (p), then the value per product = 0.1
intensity is implied within duration as relative quantities. demand and utility only come from within the realm of circulation, where a commodity becomes valuable through its purchase, but for a commodity to be sold, it must itself possess a price ready for purchase, which generally accords to a calculation made of total costs.
<two goods requiring similar labour may command very different market prices. yes; supply and demand is also central in classical understanding, but it is presumed that over time, a commodity equilibrates to its "natural price".
<The subjectivist view sidesteps this by not relying on a uniform labour‐measure but instead focusing on the marginal utility to consumers and the scarcity/supply balance. this is a perfectly rational methodology, but production itself entails the marginal utility of products through the cheapening of them by an excess quantity. the final degree of utility declines as production increases, which is another way of saying, as labour becomes intensified:
<The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth […] and consequently fell to one-half its former value.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htmso it can be explained both ways. its just about what is more consistent, then, which may be the marginal theory.
<The classic “diamond-water” paradox: water is vital, yet diamonds are far more expensive — because marginal utility and scarcity dominatebut at the same time, more labour costs generally go into the procurement of diamonds. the principle remains sound in the marginal case, but does it apply causation?
<value is derived from subjective human valuations rather than socialised labour timeyes, which sophisticated proponents of the LTV still recognise, and in marx's hegelian terms, the labour expended retroactively becomes "necessary" in the moment of consumption. he's just a bad writer:
<To-day the product satisfies a social want. Tomorrow the article may, either altogether or partially, be superseded by some other appropriate product […] If the community’s want of linen, and such a want has a limit like every other want, should already be saturated by the products of rival weavers, our friend’s product is superfluous, redundant, and consequently useless […] The labour-time that yesterday was without doubt socially necessary to the production of a yard of linen, ceases to be so to-day […] suppose that every piece of linen in the market contains no more labour-time than is socially necessary. In spite of this, all these pieces taken as a whole, may have had superfluous labour-time spent upon them […] The effect is the same as if each individual weaver had expended more labour-time upon his particular product than is socially necessary […] All the linen in the market counts but as one article of commerce, of which each piece is only an aliquot part. And as a matter of fact, the value also of each single yard is but the materialised form of the same definite and socially fixed quantity of homogeneous human labour.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm >>2538643>the producers DO NOT EXCHANGE their productsyeah,
the producers. but what of the consumers? every worker has two roles: that of a producer and that of a consumer. again, there is no contradiction between commodity production and communism. we could still demand payment for labubus, because labubus are 1) not a MoP and 2) not a need. you only get what you
need, and what counts as needs is ultimately determined
politically >>2538735>yeah, the producersthe producers refer to the workers
>what of the consumers?its written in the same post:
<with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htmso, you redeem your certificate for goods.
>every worker has two roles: that of a producer and that of a consumer. ive given you marx's perspective on both.
>there is no contradiction between commodity production and communismthere is to marx, so why not just say you disagree with marx?
>>2538567>Cockshott is utopian trash but this guy is the modern Marx.Dengist or retard, call it
>>2538758>so, you redeem your certificate for goods.in other words commodities. again there is no contradiction here, just thinking that changing the names of things changes what they are
the kind of labor vouchers Marx describes already exists - they're called debit cards. all you need to do is change the denomination from say euros to minutes. but then you have the issue that you've instituted a deflationary currency. is society to be on the hook for labor vouchers issued 30 years ago? if not then you have to introduce inflation by other means
what's really funny about Gothakritik is that value critics like citing it like it's gospel, while conveniently ignoring that it talks favorably about child labor
>>2538940>in other words commoditiesno. articles of consumption are only use-values to marx.
>the kind of labor vouchers Marx describes already exists - they're called debit cards. all you need to do is change the denomination from say euros to minutesthats what cockshott suggests.
>>2538643>to marx, "labour-money" is NOT money, and its this item which he suggests be used in a communist societyIf 'good proletarian money' has the same functions as 'bad porky money' there is no difference, lmao. It still has the function of an asset with absolute liquidity.
>>2538946>articles of consumption are only use-values to marxnot if they're bought and sold
>>2538570You are dead wrong. Communist China continuously publishes actual Communist textbooks. Not articles of pseuds espousing anti-Communism like cockshott. To read anti-Communist pseuds is harmful.
This book right here has more cognitive value than all of cockshot articles where he cries about Communism in China
>>2539023so then you disagree with marx.
this would be easier if you just said it.
>>2539033theyre not bought and sold, theyre redeemed, like a ticket to the theatre. you are free to disagree with marx's vision, but it must be stated so.
>>2539023 It doesn't have absolute liquidity because it's canceled instead of exchanged.
A retail store that exchnges commodities against a thousand dollars will have a thousand dollars at the end of the day and could use this to refill its stocks, but also buy out other stores or other issues.
A retail store that cancels a thousand labor vouchers will have nothing at the end of the day and await being restocked by the state, it will have no social power from its role in distribution.
>>2538509>unless you're a trot you should know that revolution everywhere all at once is extremely unlikely.im not critiquing soic, im critiquing the idea that you can plan an economy rationally separate from a dtop
>you can't argue with math. then why isn't the bourgeios convinced by the epic math? appeals to rationality dont work, revolution does
>unequal exchange doesn't exist.you dont understand unequal exchange. transactions being for equal value does not erase the systemic inequality created by uneven development.
>>2538550>another baseless comment.he takes the premise from bohm-bowerk, that marx cant calculate values, and instead of saying that isn't marx's point like every other communist has, he accepts the premise and then says yes we can. its a red herring and strawman that cockshott bases his work on that causes people to misunderstand the point of communism. communism is not about planning according to the law of value, it is about abolishing the law of value. stalin used the law of value to plan soviet war communism in a phase of development where the ussr lacked basic industry, in a precapitalist peasant economy. its not something that is applicable to advanced capitalist nations like the uk or us, or the soviet union in the 1980s when he was writing. if a revolution happened in the imperialist countries they could immediately abolish commodity production within one five year plan.
>>2538574ltv is correct, its just not about individual values, its about the rate of change of value in motion through commodity circulation.
>>2539162>communism is not about planning according to the law of value, it is about abolishing the law of valuein marx's lower-phase communism, he imagines orienting production and distribution around labour-time.
>>2539175not disputing that. can you people even read
>>2539178cockshott's vision is about basing production and consumption around tallying labour-time as well, so whats the big issue?
>>2539181he rejects dialectics and thus has no method for achieving higher stage communism. he doesn't connect his planning to the larger project, because he cant given his position on marx's work. it falls into the same revisionism of krushev applying a dogmatic static checklist to conditions where it doesn't apply. if you ask him he would say this "mechanical materialism" is good despite being the object of marx's critique. and where is the modern peasant state doing war communism?
>>2539187>he rejects dialectics and thus has no method for achieving higher stage communismGenuinely so the fuck what? That is a problem for people a century from now, and if you actually think you need dialectics then it's a thing that will simply happen regardless because it's how events unfold, you don't include or not include it by choice.
Sperg ass complaints.
>>2539108saar do not redeem
the point of Marx' idea is to make the private hiring of labor power impossible. if the money emanates from one and only one entity (the global state bank), and if they can't circulate like cash does (tied to one and only one person), then the only mechanism for hiring people outside the system is via commodity money. this can be achieved today by
>expropriating every bank>changing the bank software so that making transfers to anyone but the state is impossible>continue having debit cards as beforethe downside to this is that settling petty debts becomes difficult. an exception could be made for that, up to some amount
another approach is to outright ban the private hiring of labour power, while still using cash. this is the solution that the USSR chose
note that neither of these mechanisms depend on what name we give the unit of account, whether euros or minutes. it also doesn't matter what we call the act of exchanging these units for products, whether buying or redeeming. note that exchange in Marx covers more than trade - it also covers barter for example. a commodity is a thing made for
exchange, not necessarily only trade. if I make something for barter that thing is still a commodity. Marx gets this notion from Smith, because Smith believed in the barter myth. there was a need to generalize the concepts of barter and trade. this is why Marx says "exchange-value" rather than "price"
>>2539162>im not critiquing soic, im critiquing the idea that you can plan an economy rationally separate from a dtopwho exactly is suggesting this? Cockshott certainly isn't as far as I know
>then why isn't the bourgeios convinced by the epic math?Porky is well aware that planning works. that's why they fight so hard against it. it's also why the Austrians reject empiricism
the math is important because we have to know wtf we're doing. it also gives deeper insight into value theory. for example that you cannot arrive at values without a planning system already in place
>transactions being for equal value does not erase the systemic inequality created by uneven developmentso it's about uneven development all of a sudden? because people like Hickel sure as shit seem to say it's about the
exchange being unequal. that's why he uses nonsense like raw mass equivalents rather than value
not understanding dialectics is why the ussr failed and china did not. you need to be able to objectively identify primary contradictions and adapt to changing conditions. communism is not mathematically inevitable and whether we get socialism or barbarism depends on a correct understanding of reality by the vanguard party. im not saying cockshott is entirely useless, just narrowly applicable and requires a broader understanding. he shouldn't be recommended to newbies for one. hyperfocusing on him as if he is the next lenin leads to a misguided understanding of communism. tossing the core engine of marxs analytical method in the trash is not an inconsequential difference of mere opinion and this knee jerk e-celeb defense is not marxism.
>>2539250>so it's about uneven development all of a sudden? because people like Hickel sure as shit seem to say it's about the exchange being unequal. that's why he uses nonsense like raw mass equivalents rather than valuethats the same thing. uneven development isn't a natural fact about the world it is part of the capitalist dynamic. you cant just isolate the variables and declare it equal when imperialism perpetuates dependency.
the problem here is that they are talking about different levels of abstraction, and cockshott ignores this and keeps hammering on individual transactions while ignoring the systemic inequality. if he simply pointed out that he doesn't agree with the semantics and demanded people call it something else that would be fine, but he doesn't do this, he instead says that it is wrong and denies its effects, like labor aristocracy.
>>2539108>so then you disagree with marx.Isn't it okay? Marx isn't a holy bible or something.
>>2539266>cockshott ignores this and keeps hammering on individual transactions while ignoring the systemic inequalityhe's made it very explicit in his videos that the issue is the retarded level of development in say India. this is the cause for its poverty. why? if we take Vivek Chibber's word for it, then it's the result of the Indian landlord class banding together with the Indian peasantry to fight the British. so in India specifically the issue isn't that it has been imperialized, but that it hasn't been imperialized
enough. India still has a peasantry, which acts as a huge reserve army of labor. you will not see a rise in the value of Indian labor power until you dispossess this peasantry
>he instead says that it is wrong and denies its effects, like labor aristocracydoes he? also, so what?
>>2539276>so what?if a british economist denies labor aristocracy what does that do for worker organizing? you really dont think this is an issue?
>>2539250>Hickel you know hes not a communist right? and he didn't come up with unequal exchange
>>2539273they pretty much said that. the problem is trollanon misrepresents marx not that he disagrees
God why does every discussion of communist economics devolves into this bullshit of arguing about definitons and namedropping "intellectuals".
From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. Simple as. If you disagree, you get shot.
>>2539277>if a british economist denies labor aristocracy what does that do for worker organizing? you really dont think this is an issue?British labor power being of higher value than Indian labor power does not negate the fact that British workers are exploited. on the contrary - they are far heavily exploited than their Indian comrades
>>2539280labor aristocrats being more exploited in a technical sense of having a greater value expropriated does not make them more immiserated or more revolutionary, in fact it makes them less, and labor aristocrats are not the same thing as "British workers" as a whole
cockshott is just a guy he can make mistakes and we can correct them. the problem is that he does not acknowledge them as mistakes and is dogmatically anti-dialectics leading to great power chauvinism in many areas of his work. people need to actually do the reading and not just watch youtube videos
>>2539276>Chibberanother lib
>it hasn't been imperialized enoughuh huh… sure
Anti authoritarian is a good thought but how do you stop black markets?
You have to start from the basis everyone will try to sabotage the gains of the revolution at every opportunity.
>>2539608>labor aristocrats being more exploited in a technical sense of having a greater value expropriated does not make them more immiserated or more revolutionary, in fact it makes them less, and labor aristocrats are not the same thing as "British workers" as a wholethis is defeatist nonsense. I could just as well make the opposite case. because the dispossession of the peasantry has been so much more thorough, workers in the North have even less to fall back on. therefore they are more revolutionary. Porky is attempting to distract Northern workers with muh immigration but we know from history that won't work forever
>>2539294>Do you wanna make all of us poor, forcing us live in a queue just to get food? Your socialism isn't good duuude.Muh breadlines, no labour vouchers arent food stamps
>>2539659>do you stop black marketsAny major economy nowadays has a black market. Its mostly just drugs but who cares. Black markets dont create anything as they are simply a place of exchange
>>2539825>labour vouchers arent food stampswhats the difference?
>>2539841food stamps are just for food, right?
also NTA but we could actually have food stamps. we could if we wanted to have a separate set of vouchers for needs, and labor vouchers for everything else (wants)
>>2539841Labor vouchers are wage paid to you for your labor. You can use these vouchers to buy different commodities not just food.
>>2539851foostamps are not just "for food", but still designated grocery store goods. in essence, labour vouchers are just tickets for rations though, right? the difference with money is that it is exchangeable between persons and can purchase anything, while vouchers are designated toward particular persons and limit consumption for particuar goods.
>>2539852but whats the difference between vouchers and money?
>>2539856>whats the difference?Its just a shittier form of money fanatics want us to use because holy marx said so.
>>2539856>but whats the difference between vouchers and money?vouchers represent use value, money is a commodity.
>>2539858what makes vouchers *not* a commodity?
>>2539858vouchers represent abstract labor, same as money. for everyday purposes they
are money
>>2539856one thing you can't purchase with vouchers is labor power. I'd go further and say you shouldn't be allowed to purchase MoPs with them either
>>2539872if you cant purchase labour with vouchers, then how do people get vouchers?
>>2539872so i can go and speculate on derivates with my labor voucher? but im not allowed to buy MoP? are you a bit dull?
>>2539874only the public sector can buy labor power
>>2539891we'd ban derivatives obviously
>>2539894so the public sector sells to itself?
>>2539856>whats the difference between vouchers and moneya 'voucher' has the owners name on it and an expiration date. it's a physical representation of how much work you've provided for society. you just can't give it to someone else or save it for over a certain amount of time
>>2539919and whats the difference between this and foodstamps in practice?
>>2539860because vouchers can only be spent by the person who's name is attached to it, and the first time its exchanged its destroyed
>>2539925because foodstamps are a social aid? they're given unconditionally no matter if labor is produced or not. they're a net draw from society
>>2539929foodstamps operate by getting a special EBT card that allows for the payment of certain goods. it is assigmed to particular people and you may even be ID'd to prove its your EBT card. it seems like a direct analog.
>>2539926destroyed? so you can only spend your voucher once?
>>2539932I'm aware of how EBT works. doesn't change the fact that it's simply welfare and detached from labor distribution
>so you can only spend your voucher once?well yeah, can you normally spend your money twice?
>>2539936>I'm aware of how EBT works.so will labour currency be tallied on a digital card that will be able to allow you to purchase certain goods like an EBT card?
>can you normally spend your money twice?all of my money doesnt come in the form of a ticket that i cant get change for
>>2539940>labour currency be tallied on a digital cardsure. or a digital account. or slips of paper with a name+expiration date and perhaps a scannable barcode under a centralized system. it would be a lot more open than EBT in terms of what you can exchange for, like services.
when you see a Lamborghini driving down the street under a traditional money system it's easy to assume it's some dickhead celebrities son or a guy who robbed a bunch of money from old people to buy it. but under a voucher system you see someone drive a Lambo and you can automatically assume the person driving it contributed a great deal of labor to his community and wanted a badass physical representation of it. the privileges and luxuries of society gets recontextualized this way
>all of my money doesnt come in the form of a ticket that i cant get change forI don't see why a voucher couldn't be subdivided like that. it would just be a numerical value like cash can do
>>2539960>lamboif theres an expiration date to disincentivise saving, then how can anyone afford luxury?
>>2539966The expiration dates main job is to destroy inheritance.
But when it comes to keeping track of labor value produced over a persons life I envision a voucher system like this. Everyone has two accounts, immediate day-to-day spending on daily necessities, and long term savings. A person who wants a Lambo would put labor value in a long term savings account (with interest) under the condition it can't be touched. Society then uses these savings to pool together big projects that provides a return on contributed value, like a repurposed bank would.
>>2539858>commodityMoney isn't a commodity. It is made only for exchange, but not for consumption. A commodity can be exchanged or consumed. Money can only be exchanged.
>>2539981gold is a commodity that isn't consumed. I think you're wrong
>>2539982Gold isn't money. The Bretton Woods system is dead since 70s.
>>2539978what the point in separating the accounts?
>>2539982gold is used as a raw material in technology
>>2539982Btw, gold CAN be consumed. For example, the RAM in your PC contains some gold.
>>2539990the point of a savings account is stashing value away for a later purchase. instead of just having that value sit in the account idle, society should be putting it to work creating things that make more value like high speed rail. everyone gets a return on investment and bobby gets his Lambo. the only downside is bobby can't touch the money whenever he wants
>>2540001>bobby can't touch the money whenever he wantswhy not?
>>2540004how is bobby gonna get his Lambo if he can molest the money whenever he wants?
>>2540006he can withdraw from his savings account when he feels like it
>>2540005gold is purchased because it has utility in technology. before this, it had a use in being naturally scarce.
>>2540009bobby should keep it in his other account if he intends to use it
>>2539960>but under a voucher system you see someone drive a Lambo and you can automatically assume the person driving it contributed a great deal of labor to his communityI'd assume that the driver of Lambo is a son of a inner party member or something.
>>2540013so what exactly is the difference between this system of banking and how things work today?
>>2540012central banks are stockpiling gold worldwide because of its industrial utility and not because outside the USD Gold is the best way to settle trade balances? somebody tell Bloomberg lol
>>2540019so gold has magical intrinsic value?
>>2540018there's actually not a lot of difference, just as there's not a lot of differences between money and 'vouchers', visibly and mechanically they look the same on the surface, but in a communist society the very nature of these tools change, not to line the pockets of private banking individuals but to fund community and societal projects that would otherwise never be funded
What I envision, is to democratize the labor voucher system, to have contributors of labor vote and pick what infrastructure projects get funded
Like for example, the members of a small community, after their combined savings yielded a higher return than what their individual contributions would've returned, would come together and decide how best their money should be spent, like building a bridge or a community garden or whatever
>>2540020golds value lies in its social utility, there's nothing intrinsic about it, it's simply the most superior material for exchange
>>2540025bro
youre literally just describing taxation
is this the time to admit that you just want capitalism with better forms of redistribution?
>>2540028has nothing to do with taxes
>>2540029>Like for example, the members of a small community, after their combined savings yielded a higher return than what their individual contributions would've returned, would come together and decide how best their money should be spent, like building a bridge or a community garden or whateverthis is taxation
>>2540032this is a savings account, it's not compulsory. it's a community pooling their money so it can get a more efficient return than individual contributions. it COULD be applied to taxes with the same principles but I'm not talking about that
>>2540031exchange between central banks, which is still a social utility
>>2540033>a community savings account that is funded by contributions of membersso taxes would exist on top of this?
>>2540036so youre saying that gold gets its value from central banks trading bullion back and forth? what gave gold value before central banks?
>>2540037>wouldno clue vro. If I remember marx correctly he said the prole wouldn't get 100% of the value he made in the factory and a certain small % would be withheld but If american communist society is rich as fuck then I wouldn't see it as necessary imo
>>2540041marx basically supported income tax on wages to fund administration
>>2540040>what gave gold value before central banks?people trading gold back and forth. it has the best qualities for exchange, like uniform quality and malleability
>>2540052again, denominations of coin have existed for all means of exchange, not just gold. gold is used for expensive purchases, since it is valued most highly, with silver behind it. the value of each is esteemed by their relative scarcity to one another. we may read from xenophon here on these relative values (355 B.C.):
<§ 4.2 And if it be asserted that gold is after all just as useful as silver, without gainsaying the proposition I may note this fact about gold, that, with a sudden influx of this metal, it is the gold itself which is depreciated whilst causing at the same time a rise in the value of silver.https://topostext.org/work/95so gold and silver get their values from scarcity, as aristotle also says here (340 B.C.):
<Further, 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 better worth getting. Reversely, it may be argued that 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. "https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.1.i.html I need some literature on economies where the majority of workers are in services and logistics, particularly in the Imperial core
>>2540064>so gold and silver get their values from scarcityScarcity may explain why the price of gold goes up or down, but it does represent its Value, which is derived from the labor expended to produce it
but more importantly there are lots of things that are scarce, like seashells, which failed at currencies. the reason why gold is used is because of its natural qualities
but even more importantly than that the original poster said money wasn't a commodity which simply isn't true, it's the ultimate commodity of which all other commodities related themselves to
>>2540092>Scarcity may explain why the price of gold goes up or down, but it does represent its Valuethe value of commodities are their relative price.
>which is derived from the labor expended to produce itlabour does not make products valuable
>the reason why gold is used is because of its natural qualitiesgold isnt used as currency though
>it's the ultimate commodity of which all other commodities related themselves tocommodities cant "relate" things to themselves.
>>2540103>the value of commodities are their relative pricethe price of commodities are their relative value
>labour does not make products valuableyes it does
>gold isnt used as currency thoughgold is used today right now to settle trade imbalances through central banking, especially now that the USD is being phased out.
>commodities cant "relate" things to themselves.Marx in capital 1:
>"Not an atom of matter enters into the objectivity of commodities as values; in this it is the direct opposite of the coarsely sensuous objectivity of commodities as physical objects. We may twist and turn a single commodity as we wish; it remains impossible to grasp it as a thing possessing value… However, let us remember that commodities possess an objective character as values only in so far as they are all expressions of an identical social substance, human labour, that their objective character as values is therefore purely social. From this it follows self-evidently that it can only appear in the social relation between commodity and commodity." >>2540112>yes it doesdo i create value when i write this post?
>gold is used today right now to settle trade imbalances through central banking, especially now that the USD is being phased out.what? USD is not being phased out.
>marx said itso what?
>>2540125>do i create value when i write this post?your post has no social utility so no
>what? USD is not being phased out.yes it is. are you aware of the CBDC program being piloted by BRICS? they're coming together to create a new trade settlement currency partially backed by gold
and with the death of the petrodollar it's only a matter of time as the dollar is phased out while countries start using alternatives
https://www.omfif.org/2024/12/gold-backed-digital-currency-could-be-a-game-changer-for-brics/ >>2540129>your post has no social utilitywhat entails something possessing social utility?
>they're coming together to create a new trade settlement currency partially backed by goldwhat would be the point?
>>2540137>what would be the pointlol lmao
>>2540129I think his post does have social utility, because ive been reading Capital for the first time, and following this argument is helping me learn. I agree with you otherwise
>>2540069Service Workers in the Era of Monopoly Capital: A Marxist Analysis of Service and Retail Labour by Fabian van Onzen.
>>2540141yes, what would be the point of using a
shiny yellow metal as an economic deus ex machina, unless you were superstitious enough to believe it possessed as a magical intrinsic value?
>>2540224read "value, price and profit" (1865) before you read capital
>>2540235because otherwise you'd be a slave to the Dollar and the political whims of the federal reserve. there's also thousands of years of human history backing up the gold, how long has the Dollar been relevant? 80 years max?
>magical intrinsic valueno such thing. Maybe it's Fiat you're confused with
>>2540240gold causes war. silver has historically been seen as "the people's money". why not speak about silver?
>>2540245I like all precious metals. there's something uniquely alluring about gold doe..
me when I finish my book
>>2540137 >>2540129 >>2540125"Creating value" entails production for the sake of production to exchange for money or at least some kind of barter. Are you withholding posts till you get paid?
>>2540388commodity production yes but we were talking about the price of gold which is like mining for money
>>2539273>so then you disagree with marx.Dogmatist classic.
Hans-Juergen Biehling
Christoph Scherrer
>>2539824>this is defeatist nonsenseno its not
i even gave you room here
>labor aristocrats are not the same thing as "British workers" as a wholelabor aristocracy is classically defined as a small section of corrupt union leaders. but even if all british workers are labor aristocrats that is only defeatist for britain, and is perfectly in line with marx and engels own critiques of them at the height of empire.
>I could just as well make the opposite case. you could but you would be wrong. there is no historical evidence for revolution occurring in advanced countries. if you want to 'make the case' then do the rev
>>2540891guess we'll just have to lie down and rot then
>>2541186obviously talking about successful revolutions here. russia wasn't an advanced country. do you want to offer an alternative reason why they fail to get a critical mass of support?
>>2541182you certainly arent going to make any progress if you dont acknowledge the actual conditions you are working with
>>2539608The third-worldist position is straightforward: The premise is that the workers in the first world take share in looting the third world. If that is true, then it logically follows that upholding capitalism is in the first-world workers' interest. Cockshott doesn't use muh diAlECtiCs or whatever to attack how the conclusion is drawn from the premise, because there is nothing spooky about that part of the argument, he just thinks the premise is wrong. And now you seem to agree with Cockshott that the premise is wrong, so what exactly is your problem with him?
Your position is either incoherent or you have a coherent position that you express in your own private language that recycles terms out of context and thus appears incoherent. Either way, this is entirely your own fault :P
>>2544790sounds to me like you are jumping to conclusions and making assumptions. labor aristocracy and unequal exchange can exist without third-worldism. i never said that workers in the first world take share in the looting. even under the maximalist position the all or the majority of first world workers are labor aristocracy they still dont take part in the looting but are merely allocated a share of the spoils by the bourgeoisie who does the looting, no different than an unproductive laborer that works in something like logistics bringing commodities to market that is necessary for the realization of value but creates no value from themselves. you can project onto them that this makes them some kind of parasite but thats not technically accurate according to marx and bribes are not the same thing as workers exploiting other workers, which doesn't happen.
marx engels and lenin wrote about what to do about labor aristocracy and it wasn't to give up and do nothing. ive already clarified my position elsewhere that i think that despite there being historical examples of a nation being majority labor aristocrat such as during the height of the british empire, that this does not apply to modern imperialist nations because the majority is essentially disenfranchised, but this does mean that most active voters which support major parties do qualify as petty bourgeois through home ownership and stock investments and their interests are reflected by the ruling class, and there needs to be a reevaluation of lumpen and gig-precariate classes. this also applies to a plurality of liberals in major cities in comprador nations.
>your own private language that recycles terms out of contextsounds like you just dont know what unequal exchange is. pretty common for its detractors not to read it because they are busy screeching about how they are one of the good ones
>>2544920>i never said that workers in the first world take share in the looting.It wasn't a claim about you; it was a claim about the usual context of terms. Using these terms without making the different context explicit and then getting irritated that others can't read your mind is autistic.
>unproductive laborer that works in something like logisticsChange of location is itself a use-value.
>there needs to be a reevaluation of lumpenTrying to organize the subproletariat is not a new idea, it's what the anarchists have tried, and it doesn't have a better track record than trying to organize "normal" workers.
>>2545001>the usual contextclearly you are unfamiliar with the context
not a new idea
hence the "re"
do you have a point or just nitpicking?
>>2545006>usual contextThe usual context being the discussions on this website you fucking autist.
>pointThe idea with the lumpen and the like is not reintroduced by you lmao, it has been tried constantly and it's getting tried right now. You are not aware of that because you don't see the results. And you don't see them because there aren't any.
>>2545012>the discussions on this website which you are clearly not familiar with. the post i linked is 6 months old and the screenshot is even older. your assumptions only make sense if you think youtubers are the whole discussion. now i wonder if you are another one of our reddit ultraleft newfriends or just happen to accidentally agree with them lol
>The idea with the lumpen are gig workers lumpen? are people with two minimum wage part time jobs lumpen?
>you don't see the results. And you don't see them because there aren't any.and we also dont see any results organizing the traditional proletariat.
>>2540388>"Creating value" entails production for the sake of production to exchange for moneyso to put it another way, value is determined by what we purchase in a market.
>>2540399mining costs do not represent market price:
>In Q2’24, dare it be written, All-In Sustaining Costs (AISC) rose again, creeping up by 1% q/q, or a more substantial 6% y/y to US$1,388/oz.https://www.gold.org/goldhub/gold-focus/2024/10/gold-cost-drivers-veritable-pick-and-mix<Gold Price per Ounce: £3,049https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/gold-price/gold-price-chart-ounce-gbp/so demand is higher than the rate of supply.
>>2545021>the post i linkedWhich?
>your assumptions only make sense if you think youtubers are the whole discussion.What youtubers?
>now i wonder if you are another one of our reddit ultraleft newfriendsI've been on /leftypol/ since the beginning on 8ch and I assure you the usual discourse about "labor aristocracy" is what I stated.
>>2545847>Which?>>2251521>What youtubers?cockshott
>I assure youand you are wrong as we have multiple discussions in the archive
care to adress the question on gig workers? or do you selectively respond to posts as it benefits your non-argument?
please read a single book that is not tans
>>2545900Quoting from that post.
>if the current social average for a thing is X and a capitalist introduces tech that lowers the social average, they can continue to sell at or just below that X because all their competitors have not implemented the tech. so what is the source of additional surplus value that they appropriate? it comes from workers in the firms that are still working at the old averageIs this conclusion logical. Consider the following: What if the less efficient firms competing in the same sector simply did not exist. It seems highly likely the firm standing alone would have reaped even higher profits, but according to the above, it would have meant less surplus to appropriate.
>you are wrong as we have multiple discussions in the archive/leftypol/ is over a decade old at this point and that post you linked to is your own, isn't it.
>>2546041you are conflating rate and absolute profit, also individual and average and price and value. if other firms dont exist then its a monopoly and ltv doesn't apply within the sector but still holds true for the economy as a whole. monopoly cant create value thus the extended rents they command beyond their value are appropriated in exchange from other capitalists at large.
monopoly is mentioned in the post
i dont know why you think appealing to leftypol is supposed to be meaningful. this is basic marxism
>>2546056>the extended rents they command beyond their value are appropriated in exchange from other capitalists at large.Of course. And I don't take issue with such a claim. I take issue with the claim I quoted, here it is once again:
>if the current social average for a thing is X and a capitalist introduces tech that lowers the social average, they can continue to sell at or just below that X because all their competitors have not implemented the tech. so what is the source of additional surplus value that they appropriate? it comes from workers in the firms that are still working at the old averageWhich I am 100 % certain is nonsense (and I'm 99 % certain it is not in Marx). The business owner at the more efficient firm gets more money and uses that money to obtain things. These can be all sorts of use-values, it's up to the business owner how to split that between investment and luxury consumption; and when his profits are extra-ordinarily high, these things will likely have more labor-time going into them than the stuff his business is selling. There are millions of use-values out there, but surely what he is NOT going to buy is the very stuff his business is producing and selling.
So how on earth would he extract something from exactly those workers at the less efficient firms producing the same stuff, of all people?
>i dont know why you think appealing to leftypol is supposed to be meaningful.Sorry for referring to this website when making a claim about how discussion usually goes on this website.
>>2547113Where do you think value comes from? Sorry for trying to make this website more literate.
>the more efficient firm gets more moneyyes a larger market share results in a larger share of the total value for the individual, yet his rate of profit for each item goes down.
>it would have meant less surplus to appropriate.yes the profit margin goes down as tech increases. this is the core argument, its the entire point of ltv for marx. the individual gets more money because of competitive advantage, but in doing so digs his own grave along with his class. its the central contradiction of capitalism
>it's up to the business owner how to split that between investment and luxury consumptionare you talking about his personal spending? this doesn't even make sense
>Thus, although in selling their commodities the capitalists of the various spheres of production recover the value of the capital consumed in their production, they do not secure the surplus-value, and consequently the profit, created in their own sphere by the production of these commodities. What they secure is only as much surplus-value, and hence profit, as falls, when uniformly distributed, to the share of every aliquot part of the total social capital from the total social surplus-value, or profit, produced in a given time by the social capital in all spheres of production. Every 100 of an invested capital, whatever its composition, draws as much profit in a year, or any other period of time, as falls to the share of every 100, the Nth part of the total capital, during the same period. So far as profits are concerned, the various capitalists are just so many stockholders in a stock company in which the shares of profit are uniformly divided per 100, so that profits differ in the case of the individual capitalists only in accordance with the amount of capital invested by each in the aggregate enterprise, i. e., according to his investment in social production as a whole, according to the number of his shares. Therefore, the portion of the price of commodities which replaces the elements of capital consumed in the production of these commodities, the portion, therefore, which will have to be used to buy back these consumed capital-values, i. e., their cost-price, depends entirely on the outlay of capital within the respective spheres of production. But the other element of the price of commodities, the profit added to this cost-price, does not depend on the amount of profit produced in a given sphere of production by a given capital in a given period of time. It depends on the mass of profit which falls as an average for any given period to each individual capital as an aliquot part of the total social capital invested in social production.
>When a capitalist sells his commodities at their price of production, therefore, he recovers money in proportion to the value of the capital consumed in their production and secures profit in proportion to this advanced capital as the aliquot part in the total social capital. His cost-prices are specific. But the profit added to them is independent of his particular sphere of production, being a simple average per 100 units of invested capital.
>Let us assume that the five different investments I to V of the foregoing illustration belong to one man. The quantity of variable and constant capital consumed per 100 of the invested capital in each of the departments I to V in the production of commodities I to V would, needless to say, make up a part of their price, since at least this price is required to recover the advanced and consumed portions of the capital. These cost-prices would therefore be different for each class of the commodities I to V, and would as such be set differently by the owner. But as regards the different quantities of surplus-value, or profit, produced by I to V, they might easily be regarded by the capitalist as profit on his advanced aggregate capital, so that each 100 units would get their definite aliquot part. Hence, the cost-prices of the commodities produced in the various departments I to V would be different; but that portion of their selling price derived from the profit added per 100 capital would be the same for all these commodities. The aggregate price of the commodities I to V would therefore equal their aggregate value, i. e., the sum of the cost-prices I to V plus the sum of the surplus-values, or profits, produced in I to V. It would hence actually be the money-expression of the total quantity of past and newly applied labour incorporated in commodities I to V. And in the same way the sum of the prices of production of all commodities produced in society — the totality of all branches of production — is equal to the sum of their values.
>This statement seems to conflict with the fact that under capitalist production the elements of productive capital are, as a rule, bought on the market, and that for this reason their prices include profit which has already been realised, hence, include the price of production of the respective branch of industry together with the profit contained in it, so that the profit of one branch of industry goes into the cost-price of another. But if we place the sum of the cost-prices of the commodities of an entire country on one side, and the sum of its surplus-values, or profits, on the other, the calculation must evidently be right. For instance, take a certain commodity A. Its cost-price may contain the profits of B, C, D, etc., just as the cost-prices of B, C, D, etc., may contain the profits of A. Now, as we make our calculation the profit of A will not be included in its cost-price, nor will the profits of B, C, D, etc., be included in theirs. Nobody ever includes his own profit in his cost-price. If there are, therefore, n spheres of production, and if each makes a profit amounting to p, then their aggregate cost-price = k - np. Considering the calculation as a whole we see that since the profits of one sphere of production pass into the cost-price of another, they are therefore included in the calculation as constituents of the total price of the end-product, and so cannot appear a second time on the profit side. If any do appear on this side, however, then only because the commodity in question is itself an ultimate product, whose price of production does not pass into the cost-price of some other commodity. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch09.htm
>The capital invested in some spheres of production has a mean, or average, composition, that is, it has the same, or almost the same composition as the average social capital.
>In these spheres the price of production is exactly or almost the same as the value of the produced commodity expressed in money. If there were no other way of reaching a mathematical limit, this would be the one. Competition so distributes the social capital among the various spheres of production that the prices of production in each sphere take shape according to the model of the prices of production in these spheres of average composition, i.e., they = k + kp' (cost-price plus the average rate of profit multiplied by the cost price). This average rate of profit, however, is the percentage of profit in that sphere of average composition in which profit, therefore, coincides with surplus-value. Hence, the rate of profit is the same in all spheres of production, for it is equalized on the basis of those average spheres of production which have the average composition of capital. Consequently, the sum of the profits in all spheres of production must equal the sum of the surplus-values, and the sum of the prices of production of the total social product equal the sum of its value. But it is evident that the balance among spheres of production of different composition must tend to equalize them with the spheres of average composition, be it exactly or only approximately the same as the social average. Between the spheres more or less approximating the average there is again a tendency toward equalization, seeking the ideal average, i.e., an average that does not really exist, i.e., a tendency to take this ideal as a standard. In this way the tendency necessarily prevails to make the prices of production merely converted forms of value, or to turn profits into mere portions of surplus-value. However, these are not distributed in proportion to the surplus-value produced in each special sphere of production, but rather in proportion to the mass of capital employed in each sphere, so that equal masses of capital, whatever their composition, receive equal aliquot shares of the total surplus-value produced by the total social capital.
>In the case of capitals of average, or approximately average, composition, the price of production is thus the same or almost the same as the value, and the profit the same as the surplus-value produced by them. All other capitals, of whatever composition, tend toward this average under pressure of competition. But since the capitals of average composition are of the same, or approximately the same, structure as the average social capital, all capitals have the tendency, regardless of the surplus-value produced by them, to realize the average profit, rather than their own surplus-value in the price of their commodity, i.e., to realize the prices of production.
>On the other hand, it may be said that wherever an average profit, and therefore a general rate of profit, is produced — no matter by what means — such an average profit cannot be anything but the profit on the average social capital, whose sum is equal to the sum of surplus-value. Moreover, the prices obtained by adding this average profit to the cost-prices cannot be anything but the values transmuted into prices of production. Nothing would be altered if capitals in certain spheres of production would not, for some reason, be subject to the process of equalization. The average profit would then be computed on that portion of the social capital which enters the equalization process. It is evident that the average profit can be nothing but the total mass of surplus-values allotted to the various quantities of capital proportionally to their magnitudes in their different spheres of production. It is the total realized unpaid labour, and this total mass, like the paid, congealed or living, labour, obtains in the total mass of commodities and money that falls to the capitalists.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch10.htm >Nevertheless, even in this case, the increased production of surplus-value arises from the curtailment of the necessary labour-time, and from the corresponding prolongation of the surplus-labour. [4] Let the necessary labour-time amount to 10 hours, the value of a day’s labour-power to five shillings, the surplus labour-time to 2 hours, and the daily surplus-value to one shilling. But the capitalist now produces 24 articles, which he sells at tenpence a-piece, making twenty shillings in all. Since the value of the means of production is twelve shillings, 14 2/5 of these articles merely replace the constant capital advanced. The labour of the 12 hours’ working day is represented by the remaining 9 3/5 articles. Since the price of the labour-power is five shillings, 6 articles represent the necessary labour-time, and 3 3/5 articles the surplus-labour. The ratio of the necessary labour to the surplus-labour, which under average social conditions was 5:1, is now only 5:3. The same result may be arrived at in the following way. The value of the product of the working day of 12 hours is twenty shillings. Of this sum, twelve shillings belong to the value of the means of production, a value that merely re-appears. There remain eight shillings, which are the expression in money, of the value newly created during the working day. This sum is greater than the sum in which average social labour of the same kind is expressed: twelve hours of the latter labour are expressed by six shillings only. The exceptionally productive labour operates as intensified labour; it creates in equal periods of time greater values than average social labour of the same kind. (See Ch. I. Sect 2. p. 44.) But our capitalist still continues to pay as before only five shillings as the value of a day’s labour-power. Hence, instead of 10 hours, the labourer need now work only 7½ hours, in order to reproduce this value. His surplus-labour is, therefore, increased by 2½ hours, and the surplus-value he produces grows from one, into three shillings. Hence, the capitalist who applies the improved method of production, appropriates to surplus-labour a greater portion of the working day, than the other capitalists in the same trade. He does individually, what the whole body of capitalists engaged in producing relative surplus-value, do collectively. On the other hand, however, this extra surplus-value vanishes, so soon as the new method of production has become general, and has consequently caused the difference between the individual value of the cheapened commodity and its social value to vanish. The law of the determination of value by labour-time, a law which brings under its sway the individual capitalist who applies the new method of production, by compelling him to sell his goods under their social value, this same law, acting as a coercive law of competition, forces his competitors to adopt the new method. [5] The general rate of surplus-value is, therefore, ultimately affected by the whole process, only when the increase in the productiveness of labour, has seized upon those branches of production that are connected with, and has cheapened those commodities that form part of, the necessary means of subsistence, and are therefore elements of the value of labour-power. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch12.htm >>2542149>offer an alternative reason why they fail to get a critical mass of supportThey literally won the civil war you dungus
>>2547142 &
>>2547143You completely fail to address the argument,
which is not in conflict at all with the Marx stuff you quote. First of, you should paraphrase what the argument in
>>2547113 even is. And to get that right, you need to read the claim it quotes and disagrees with.
>>2547113>>2547415>So how on earth would he extract something from exactly those workers at the less efficient firms producing the same stuff, of all people?to simplify anon's bloated point, market competition lowers the value of labour as a whole, so the less efficient firms are forced to sell cheaper, meaning that what is more productive takes up market share.
>>2547415>First of, you should paraphrase what the argumenti asked for clarification because your argument doesn't make sense. its really not clear what you think you are disputing. marx is pretty explicit. competition redistributes value to more efficient firms. in other words
>the source of additional surplus value that they appropriate[…] comes from workers in the firms that are still working at the old averageif you want more you gotta tells us where do you think value comes from and what does a business owners luxury consumption have to do with the social distribution of value? why do you think i am suggesting he has to buy his own product and what does that have to do with the source of his profits?
value comes from labor. a more efficient capitalist cannot "create" more value, especially because the margin between his costs and surplus go down as he increases technology. so where does the additional value he gets come from? it comes from the total stock of social value existing in a capitalist society, it is redistributed through competition, appropriated by the more efficient firms.
you already understand how rent works it the same principle but temporary until competition equalizes is, where monopoly is a defined by a lack of competition.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativer_Mehrwert#Vom_Extramehrwert_zum_Extraprofit >>2547633Going once more to the post that you recommended:
>if the current social average for a thing is X and a capitalist introduces tech' that lowers the social average, they can continue to sell at or just below that X because all their competitors have not implemented the tech.That I read as referring to companies in the same industry, because one would not say that e. g. a bicycle company "fails" to implement some new tech that comes up in the aviation industry.
>so what is the source of additional surplus value that they appropriate? it comes from workers in the firms that are still working at the old averageSo this seems to refer to workers in other companies within the same industrial sector with lower efficiency and posits a value transfer coming from
specifically these workers. And this does not make sense. I did not allude to it, I did not use cryptic language, I did not use sarcasm or irony. I directly pointed at exactly this and said this is wrong.
Value transfers happen through market exchanges at price ratios diverging from SNLT ratios. The capitalist with higher efficiency gets more money and uses that money to obtain things with much, much more embodied labor than "he gives" (=his workers give). He is not taking the embodied labor from less efficient workers producing the same use-value at other companies. (Of all the things in the world he could buy, why would he buy the very same things his company produces?)
Now tell me, was that your own post? I'm asking that because people are often blind to obvious typos in their own text and it's likewise with semantic mistakes they say but don't actually mean. Or perhaps it was a deeper mistake and you thought too abstractly about it (a world with everybody working at "widget" factories).
>>2548248> The capitalist with higher efficiency gets more money and uses that money to obtain thingswhat things?
>Of all the things in the world he could buy, why would he buy the very same things his company produces?What the fuck are you talking about? What does this have to do with unequal exchange?
>>2548265You ask what does buying have to do with unequal exchange?
>>2547633>i asked for clarificationYou said
>>2547113 was wrong. How can you disagree with a statement that you are incapable of paraphrasing and expect to be compelling?
Let me paraphrase it:
Do you believe that
among companies producing the same commodity there is a value transfer from companies with less efficient tech to companies with more efficient tech? There. That is what was denied in
>>2547113 and
>>2548248 and
none of the Marx quotes in the wall of text you posted in "response" (to the argument you could not paraphrase…) was about that.
There are people who are claiming exactly that, that for example less efficient wheat farmers in the third world transfer value to the more efficient wheat farmers in the US. Do you believe this?
>>2548694yeah i dont think a capitalists luxury consumption changes the dynamic. indeed why would he buy his own products? this makes no sense. how would a capitalist buying a yacht disprove unequal exchange? what does his personal consumption have to do with the creation and appropriation of value in the production of his enterprise? you arent making any sense
>>2548694>Do you believe that among companies producing the same commodity there is a value transfer from companies with less efficient tech to companies with more efficient tech?>There are people who are claiming exactly that, that for example less efficient wheat farmers in the third world transfer value to the more efficient wheat farmers in the US. Do you believe this?>>2549170>yeah i dont think a capitalists luxury consumption changes the dynamic.Are you having a stroke?
>>2549754Do you believe that among companies producing the same commodity there is a value transfer from companies with less efficient tech to companies with more efficient tech?
>>2549758Why do you insist on changing the subject every time you get proven wrong and answer every question with a question?
>>2549767This post quotes a statement and asks a question about it:
>>2546041<if the current social average for a thing is X and a capitalist introduces tech that lowers the social average, they can continue to sell at or just below that X because all their competitors have not implemented the tech. so what is the source of additional surplus value that they appropriate? it comes from workers in the firms that are still working at the old average>Is this conclusion logical.This post is about the same question:
>>2547113>how on earth would he extract something from exactly those workers at the less efficient firms producing the same stuff, of all people?This post is again about the same question, and at this point it should become clear to everybody what the question is and what triggered it:
>>2548248<if the current social average for a thing is X and a capitalist introduces tech' that lowers the social average, they can continue to sell at or just below that X because all their competitors have not implemented the tech.>That I read as referring to companies in the same industry, because one would not say that e. g. a bicycle company "fails" to implement some new tech that comes up in the aviation industry.<so what is the source of additional surplus value that they appropriate? it comes from workers in the firms that are still working at the old average>So this seems to refer to workers in other companies within the same industrial sector with lower efficiency and posits a value transfer coming from specifically these workers. And this does not make sense.This post is again about the same question and explicitly announces that it is:
>>2548694>Let me paraphrase it:>Do you believe that among companies producing the same commodity there is a value transfer from companies with less efficient tech to companies with more efficient tech?This post is again about the same question and is literally copy-pasting it:
>>2549758>Do you believe that among companies producing the same commodity there is a value transfer from companies with less efficient tech to companies with more efficient tech?And to this last post, you reply:
>Why do you insist on changing the subject every time you get proven wrong.
.
.
Actually, all you have to do is to answer this question. Because it is the ONLY question.
>>2549808>>2545021>are gig workers lumpen? >are people with two minimum wage part time jobs lumpen?>>2547142>Where do you think value comes from?>are you talking about his personal spending?>>2547633>where do you think value comes from and what does a business owners luxury consumption have to do with the social distribution of value? why do you think i am suggesting he has to buy his own product and what does that have to do with the source of his profits?
>where does the additional value he gets come from?>>2548265>what things?>What does this have to do with unequal exchange?>>2549170>why would he buy his own products?>how would a capitalist buying a yacht disprove unequal exchange? >what does his personal consumption have to do with the creation and appropriation of value in the production of his enterprise?>>2548248>That I read as referring to companies in the same industry, because one would not say that e. g. a bicycle company "fails" to implement some new tech that comes up in the aviation industry.Is industrialization not tech? Is automation not tech?
>Or perhaps it was a deeper mistake and you thought too abstractly about it (a world with everybody working at "widget" factories).Thats actually the case for financial capital. Investment is abstract between capitalist competitors.
>>2547142>the profit added to them is independent of his particular sphere of production>All other capitals, of whatever composition>>2549758>the same commodity >>2548694>the same commodity >>2548248>I read as referring to companies in the same industryWhy?
>>2549758>techIts not the just the tech, its the interrelated play of tech, productivity, wages, and international politics. You conveniently ignore posts that explain this
>>2544943 to instead play Socrates fishing for gotchas. Why dont you explain your position for once instead of playing games?
>>2549822>Why dont you explain your position for once instead of playing games?My position, which I have explicitly stated several times, is that I do NOT believe in value transfer of the very narrow type (e. g. surplus value somehow flowing from workers at less efficient wheat farms to the capitalist owners of the more efficient wheat farms) and I have asked you, again several times and very explicitly, whether you do.
>>2549873Guess you will have to re-read the thread to find out.
>>2549935Well it's in one of the archived posts that you recommended and which is in all likelihood by you. So I asked because this is in your words, whether intended or not. And if it's unintended, then it's no surprise that you didn't initially understand the response to it, because, as I said in
>>2548248:
>people are often blind to obvious typos in their own text and it's likewise with semantic mistakes.(This is also the post where I make really clear what I see in these words and I don't believe anyone
not emotionally invested in his e-penis would think that a far-fetched interpretation.)
But I wasn't sure whether it was unintentional, since this is also an explicit position of some of the unequal-exchange guys. A specific example a couple months ago on /leftypol/ was a claim of value transfer within the steel industry from the less efficient producers in India to the more efficient producers in the first world.
And I do not accept this position. And to be clear: I don't just disagree with it in the sense that the value transfer happens along more lines than just the narrow path. I say that the transfer lines do not contain the narrow path. Do you agree with my position?
>>2549965>since this is also an explicit position of some of the unequal-exchange guys.Have you actually read the unequal exchange book yet?
>I don't just disagree with it in the sense that the value transfer happens along more lines And do you also dispute that?
>>2549978>Have you actually read the unequal exchange book yet?Not that one. Cope.
>>I don't just disagree with it in the sense that the value transfer happens along more lines >And do you also dispute that?This is answered in the next sentence after the sentence you quoted.
I don't dispute that price ratios can diverge from value ratios even in the long term and I know that Capital Volume III posits systematic transfers from industries with lower organic composition of capital to industries with higher composition and I already explicitly told you in
>>2547415 that my argument is not in conflict with that. And I literally tell you this in the post you reply to:
I say that the transfer lines do not contain the narrow path. This sentence contains the statement that transfer lines exist but they don't contain the narrow path. Do you agree with this?
>>2550104>transfer lines existSo you agree with unequal exchange.
>the transfer lines do not contain the narrow pathBy "contains" do you mean that the "narrow path" understood to be the direct transfer of value from from A to B does not happen at all?
If transfer lines exist, then what are they?
If transfers exist from industries with lower organic composition of capital to industries with higher composition, then wouldn't at least some value from low organic composition agriculture or steel be transferred to higher composition agriculture or steel?
So then if we were to take a simplified example where the whole economy is just A and B, wouldn't we say that A is transferred to B?
>>2550141A barter exchange of two goods between company A and company B that contain different SNLT is an unequal exchange. Likewise if the exchange is the good from A against money and then money against the good from B and these two goods have unequal SNLT. The value transfer is not something spooky that happens through the ether. It banally happens in the real world through the market exchange of goods (consumer goods as well as means of production and raw materials) and the different SNLT embedded in them. These are the transfer lines.
A trade line between two companies can refer to company A and B directly interfacing or indirectly in however many steps (company A sells an input to company X and company X makes an input with that for company Y which makes an input with that for company B). If there is no trade line between company A and company B, directly or indirectly, there is no value transfer. And when there is interaction through a chain, the longer the chain is, the less likely it is that much gets to the end.
That's why it is sensible to ask how it would affect company B if company A did not exist. If in that scenario one cannot imagine a negative effect for company B or one even estimates that would be overall good news for company B, how could one claim there currently is a value transfer from A to B? Perhaps one could still make that scenario produce that result by throwing a truckload of edge-case assumptions at it, but then one is engaged in playing rhetorical games and hairsplitting more than investigating the real world.
> In fact, the movement towards the closed monopolist area is not in itself new, but is inherent in the whole development of imperialism, whose essential character is the denial and ending of free trade. What is new is only the extreme intensity with which this monopolist policy is now pursued, and the complexity of the weapons which are now brought into play for its realization.
> Not only the old tariff weapons, which are now brought to unheard of heights, but a host of new weapons - surtaxes variable at a moment's notice, quotas, embargoes, exchange restrictions, currency control, complex trade alliances, State subsidies, and direct State economic control - are now brought into play by the imperialist giants in their ever more desperate conflict for closed markets, for privileged areas of exploitation, and for control of the sources of raw materials.
> The intensified conflict of the imperialist Powers for the shrinking world market makes this development to new and ever fiercer weapons of economic warfare, and essentially reactionary choking of the channels of free world trade,
<not merely some foolish and mistaken policy of particular statesmen, but the inevitable development and working out of the inner laws of imperialism.
>In vain the theoretical economic experts of the League of Nations throw up their hands in distress and deplore the universal "loss" and "impoverishment" caused by such politics.
^That's what Dick Wolff is doing right now, while blaming it all on Trump and what he calls the white working class
>>2532234Michael Hudson, if you can stand his incessant Trotskyist wailings
>>2550311>A barter exchangeI thought we were talking about capitalism.
>A trade line Is a "transfer line" the same as a "trade line"? I thought we were talking about transfers of value.
>If there is no trade line between company A and company B, directly or indirectly, there is no value transfer.Then why does Marx say that extra surplus value is drawn from the total social stock of value and redistributed through exchange? Do you think he is saying that A and B have to be inputs or outputs of eachother? That doesn't seem to be the case.
>the longer the chain is, the less likely it is that much gets to the endSure, but there is some that gets to the end. And if any extra surplus value gets to the end this creates an imbalance, and through continued cycles of the circuit of capital that imbalance grows. And if there is a net drain on low ooc to high ooc that is then invested into addition means of production at each step then this growth compounds exponentially and the gap widens.
>That's why it is sensible to ask how it would affect company B if company A did not exist.No it doesn't make sense because because the transfer line is the entire market structure of capitalism, not individual trades between producers.
>a truckload of edge-case assumptionsBut its not an edge-case assumption its a hypothetical simplified market. The same principle applies when you scale up.
>>2550969>I thought we were talking about capitalism.Remember when you asked a question in response to a sentence that was literally answered in the next sentence after that (pointed out to you in
>>2550104). Please read a comment to the end before composing your reply. If you read the comment
>>2550311 as a whole, you will see that it develops a concept from less complex to more complex as a didactic device. (And by the way, barter still does happen in capitalism, yes, even between firms. It's legal.)
>Is a "transfer line" the same as a "trade line"?No. You should be able to figure out what these terms mean just by reading the comment as a whole. Trades connecting two companies, whether directly or indirectly through intermediate links, make a transfer line if the trades are unequal in SNLT terms. Now, individual trades are almost always unequal in SNLT terms, the question is really what the general tendency of repeated trades through such a chain is. (If on Tuesday a bit more goes from A to B and on Wednesday it's the other way that's not very interesting.) If the general tendency is that on the end of A more is given in SNLT terms than is received from B at the end, we can say there is a value transfer from A to B.
>Then why does Marx say that extra surplus value is drawn from the total social stock of value and redistributed through exchange?The statement "group A does something to group B" does not logically entail "each individual member of A does something to each individual member of B". Example: The statement "Alice's family gives gifts to Bob's family" does not logically entail the statement "each member of Alice's family is gifting something to each member of Bob's family". Likewise with Marx and the redistribution of surplus value in volume III. Read
>>2547142 carefully and you will see that Marx makes the former type of statement and not the latter. (I don't give a shit whether you posted that yourself. You don't understand it.)
>>2551260>If you read the comment as a whole, you will see that it develops a concept from less complex to more complex as a didactic device.>No. You should be able to figure out what these terms mean just by reading the comment as a whole.>If the general tendency is that on the end of A more is given in SNLT terms than is received from B at the end, we can say there is a value transfer from A to B.>The statement "group A does something to group B" does not logically entail "each individual member of A does something to each individual member of B".Okay great then you have all the tools necessary to understand what I have been saying the whole time. Now go back to the original post you started your fit over and apply the same logic.
>>2551279>you have all the tools necessary to understand what I have been saying the whole timeAnd I'm telling you that you seem committed to metaphysical nonsense and that you don't quite understand what Marx says here
>>2547142Marx says the result is quantitatively the same as what a certain type of simple calculation results in. He is NOT saying that this simple calculation resembles the actual process. As quoted in that post, but bolding different parts:
<What they secure is only as much surplus-value, and hence profit, as falls, when uniformly distributed-which would be very odd phrasing indeed if he really thought about the value flying through the ether as the third-worldists have it. Since he is NOT saying that this simple calculation resembles the actual process, he is not implying that "the transfer line is the entire market structure of capitalism".
Anyway, see you tomorrow.
>>2551301You already conceded that value is transferred but you have yet to tell us what you think in your interpretation the source of this value is despite being repeatedly asked. It really seems like you made up a strawman in your head based on your own misunderstanding despite being told right away that you are making assumptions, and instead of clarifying what you mean you just repeatedly ask the same inane question based on that false assumption.
Really though you could just read the book instead of inventing positions other people dont hold.
>>2551301 (me)
>Marx says the result is quantitatively the same as what a certain type of simple calculation results in. He is NOT saying that this simple calculation resembles the actual process.To elaborate on that, it's a bit like having to stay within a weight limit for transporting items and facing the question whether one is below that without data in hand about the individual weights, but only with data about the average item weight and the number of items. From that one can trivially compute the total weight of the pile. But it would be asinine to assume that the things themselves actually get uniform in weight.
>>2551309>You already conceded that value is transferredI did not "concede" that, at no point did I assume otherwise.
>you have yet to tell us what you think in your interpretation the source of this value isThis shouldn't be necessary in a thread on Marxist economics: labor power. (There are complications in that you can't directly use time, because people work at different speed, and there is labor power at different skill levels, and there is overproduction and mismanagement.) I'm not making a new definition of value. I'm telling you that at some point the value has to be embodied in something to be transferred.
>you just repeatedly ask the same inane questionWell at least now you don't claim anymore I'm constantly changing the topic, so finally you are making a tiny bit of progress.
Third-worldists say first-worlders live the nice life on the back of third-world workers. You live the nice life (any life really) by consuming use-values. Hence to make a compelling case for the third-worldist claim being true, value transfer can at best only play one part in a bigger argument about use-values constructed wholly or in crucial parts in the third world ending up being consumed in the first world. The value transfer described volume III from industries with low organic composition of capital to industries with high organic composition of capital all by itself does not work as proof or almost-proof for the third-worldist claim. Marx did not construct that to argue for giga-profits in the industries with high organic composition of capital, but just normal profits.
>>2551311Make the case for the book. Why is that your go-to for unequal exchange and not the stuff by Jason Hickel or Zak Cope
*(recently turned Zionist lol)?
>>2552541 (me)
>The value transfer described volume III*The value transfer described
in volume III
>>2552541>I did not "concede" that>>2552541>value transfer described volume III from industries with low organic composition of capital to industries with high organic composition of capital>labor powerSo when I talk about wage differentials, ie the price of labor power, that is something meaningfully different to you? and you say im splitting hairs and not reading the context of the whole post
>at least now you don't claim anymore I'm constantly changing the topicand then you immediately change the topic back to
>Third-worldists>first-worlders live the nice life on the back of third-world workers>>2544920>sounds to me like you are jumping to conclusions and making assumptions.>labor aristocracy and unequal exchange can exist without third-worldism.>i never said that workers in the first world take share in the looting.this can also be read as "i am not a third-worldist"
and neither is Emmanuel btw
>all by itself does not work as proof or almost-proof so third world nations dont have a lower composition of organic capital than first world nations?
>for the third-worldist claimagain, not a third worldist
>Why is that your go-to for unequal exchange and not the stuff by Jason Hickel or Zak Copewhy is my go-to a marxist and not a liberal or a liberal? you really cant figure that out? you really have been attacking something you dont understand for multiple days now
i wonder if it could have anything to do with the term being coined by the author lmao
>>2552574>you say im splitting hairsNo. I'm guessing in
>>2550311 that it
would amount to splitting hairs over edge cases if you actually made some effort in your posts and bothered to flesh out your argument.
>so third world nations dont have a lower composition of organic capital than first world nations?What would be the relevance of this, given that Marx argues in Volume III that the value transfer to firms with high organic composition merely gives them a normal profit?
Make the case for the book. What's the gist of it. "Here take these 500 pages he is not a lib or a zio" is not very compelling.
>>2537941Decentralized petit bourgeois hands typed this
>>2537941What if we replaced money with labor coupons? That would be 100% full communism LMAO
>>2554071I have no good evidence anybody in this thread has actually read Emmanuel's book. (Shitting on "Unequal Exchange Theory" is a /leftypol/ tradition, but usually the targeted authors have been other guys than Emmanuel.) And if one shills for a specific book, but somehow can't give a summary of said book, why should anybody take the recommendation from that person seriously? Since reading books takes time, being for or against reading a specific work is not a symmetric issue. The onus is on people shilling for it. Proper investigation in this context is asking the people claiming to have done the reading, and so far they have not cooperated in the investigation.
>>2554242Did you post an embed? I'm on an adblocker, so I'm not seeing anything. Just post link.
Unique IPs: 88