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
Unique IPs: 45