/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2723676
a crow is not raised in a vacuum.

Rangeban British IPs. That is all.

>>2722737
>muh pounds of corn
Insane that anyone though this was useful.
The U.S. has all the corn. All the corn belong to us.

>>2722737
Who is this oompa loompa?

based op
fuck supply and demand
economics is a scam
seething liberTARDians and austriaggers btfo

We may read from "Cratylus" (~370 BCE), a point is made regarding the etymology for the term "profit" ("lusiteloun"; 417b-c). Socrates contends that profit does not come from "apoluei" ("to release" a capital sum for reinvestment), but rather that the term comes from "luei" and "luon" (in "doing away with" any terminus to the movement of money, for which Socrates describes the process as "immortal" and "without end"; telos - this is directly translated into the notion of "Chrematistics", espoused by Aristotle; t. Politics, Bk. 1, Ch. 8-10). Further on this point, Hermes is also discussed; in his etymology, being a "messenger", and thus he is the God of language, but also profit. Aristotle invokes man's unique power of speech with his ability to have politics, and Adam Smith applies a synonymity between speech and trade, which thus intersect in this Hermetic way.

In Plato's "Statesman" (~370 BCE), Plato devises two roles in production, according to the theoretical and practical. He calls one the (i) "contributory cause" of production and the second, the (ii) actual "cause" (281d-e). He says that those who provide tools for production are not the active cause of a thing to be produced, yet activity cannot be completed without this aspect. He is rather ambiguous as to where this delineation can be exactly grasped however, by not stating whether the tool-maker is the contributor to production, which would be slightly paradoxical, seeing how making tools is productive. Plato otherwise associates contribution with theory rather than practice (287b), as he states, that it is "expertise" in providing tools that fashions them as instruments of production, either referring to invention or investment, such as the case of the slave-master (Plato seeing capital as the potential cause of Labour).

If we apprehend this meaning thus, we can see that Plato relates the order of production to class, with the master being separate from the direct product, yet gaining the right to possess the entire thing. Plato still considers the "potential" of capital as a necessary element to its active principle of labour for products, however.  Earlier, he also considers the difference between retail and artisinal trade, putting it in these terms (260c-d): "the retail-dealer is distinguished from that of the ‘self-seller’ or producer who sells his own products […] The retailer, I think, takes over someone else’s products, which have previously been sold, and sells them on, for a second time." Retail is an "imitation" of the original producer. Both sell, but only one creates.

In Xenophon's "The Economist" (~360 BCE) we see that Socrates begins by enquiring into the nature of wealth (that is, of the possessions of a man's estate which have "weal", so as to become "wealth"). He thus gathers that although a man may possess many items, if they remain injurious to him, they are useless, and so represent a loss more than a gain. Possession then, is distinguished from utility by these means. For example, he sees that though a man may possess a horse, if he cannot use it, then it is evidently useless to him. He qualifies uselessness twainfold however, between what is useless to its possessor, but what is useful by the means of its sale. He uses the example of a flute, which is either useful to the player, or useful by trade, by means of being exchangeable. Thus, a commodity is enshrined with two uses, one for its owner and the other for its prospective owner. We may thus see this distinction as "value in use" and "value in exchange" which confer contradictory properties in commodities.

His interlocutor, Critobulus, thus perceives that wealth is now twainfold, between use and exchange, but Socrates criticises this point, seeing that although a commodity may fetch a price, this still cannot count as wealth. His rebuke is that if uselessness arises from the lack of knowledge of a thing, then being ignorant of how to properly spend money must also cause more harm than good. So then, money in itself cannot be wealth, but rather, as Critobulus adds, it is often a source of madness, and so its accumulation is inherently harmful. Critobulus considers the benefit of profit, however, and speaks upon the position of the master, but Socrates immediately says that the master is himself a slave, for his wealth brings dependence on luxury and idleness by the labour of others, multiplying wickedness in its way.

After this, Socrates says that the pursuit of greater wealth is useless, so long as one is made sufficient in his means, and points to Critobulus as an example of someone who feels insecure in his wealth, despite surpassing Socrates' estate, but only due to ambition. Thus, Socrates is richer, for in having less, he has more (if we recall the earlier argument that possessing value in exchange, or money, represents a loss, not a gain). This is is the same opinion as Democritus, in Fragments 83 and 147, that desire causes lack, which is poverty, while satiety is nothing more than a lack of desire. This is also equivalent to the Epicurean view of "pleasure".

Finally, in (Ch. 5) Xenophon gives a rather concide definition of what he considers to be Economics: "Well, then, we agreed that economy was the proper title of a branch of knowledge, and this branch of knowledge appeared to be that whereby men are enabled to enhance the value of their houses or estates; and by this word "house or estate" we understood the whole of a man's possessions; and "possessions" again we defined to include those things which the possessor should find advantageous for the purposes of his life; and things advantageous finally were discovered to mean all that a man knows how to use and turn to good account."

Xenophon's "On Revenues" (~355 BCE) begins by a discussion as to the increase of poverty in Athens, which Xenophon believes can be mended by a policy of self-sufficiency. He sees that although Athens is suitable for agriculture, the true wealth is in its silver and marble, which he sees Athens having a regional monopoly on, and so quarrying the land is what is best to feed the citizens of the land, by meeting the commercial demand of foreigners. Immigrants already resided in Athens, who Xenophon perceives positively by their contribution by taxation, as yet, he perceives that the "Sojourner's Tax" (a tax imposed on foreign residents) is too high, and that it ought to be reduced, and foreigners should integrate with Athenians, and thus only share in common taxes. He sees then that what is best for civil society is not necessarily best for the state. On top of this, Xenophon promotes the cultivation of land for housing, by grants from the state to foreigners, so that they should bring wealth into the Nation. He further notes that the harbour of Athens is the best in Greece, and with its means of universal (rather than local) currency, greater trade can be facilitated, rather than by the barter of other ports.

With this, he writes, comes more buying and selling, which means greater rents, customs and duties, which will be a mutually beneficial means of raising revenues. Other means he appears to suggest would be war bonds for expeditions, which appreciate investment. He also sees that if special honours are conferred upon contributors, then many men would happily give money. With this additional capital fund, Xenophon perceives that lodging-houses for merchants can be set up, to aid in the hospitality of trade. Xenophon's enthusiasm is that with this concurrent commerce and development, economic growth seems entirely exponential and linear.

In chapter 4, Xenophon brings his attention back to silver, and sees a paradox of production, that although mining is in constant operation, demand for labour only increases, leading to more mining for silver. What's also interesting is that Xenophon comments upon the exception which the industry of mining has from the rest. For example, he states that the limits of labour in farming are set at a certain rate, while the labour for silver mining is constantly under-supplied, with even iron and bronze production suffering from overproduction. Here, Xenophon directly associates the valuation of commodities with their supply, seeing over-supply leading to a depreciation of prices, in turn; ruining the manufacturer of the articles (e.g. by declining profits). Xenophon then repeats the point; the more silver mined, the more silver which is demanded to be mined. From this account he elaborates that the demand for silver (which was used to issue drachmae) is hoarded by its possessors, or otherwise spent on luxuries, and on the other hand, he says that when a Nation is poor, the demand for money is even greater, though less in supply. Relating his earlier comments on depreciation, he also invokes gold, so as to say that with increased supply relative to silver, it is the gold which decreases in value as silver rises in value (despite their apparent equivalent usefulness; we may of course refer to the earlier dialogue for such clarification - money's value is not based in its utility, but capacity for disutility). Xenophon makes a curious comments after this, where he says that silver may increase in supply but not depreciate (given its established exceptionality). It is unclear whether he believes this is due to a property of the silver itself (which is doubtful) or based on demand. He has already stated that silver increases in demand in a poorer Nation, so surely its value is related to supply.

After this, Xenophon proposes a plan to increase the revenue of the state by investment into silver mining, through a public sector of slave labour, aimed at being proportional to 3 slaves per Athenian citizen (the number of Athenian citizens at this time was around 21,000, so he is proposing the state owning 63,000 slaves to mine silver - total number of slaves in Athens around this time was around 400,000, so he suggests using around 1/6 of total slaves to mine silver. This is the equivalent of the state nationalising ~15% of the economy, on top of existing public projects). Xenophon's extended plan is for the state to own slaves so as to lend them to private contractors, where it is implied that due to a natural shortage of available free labour, this reserve of slaves will be a monopoly on mining services. On the long-term plan, he sets out a model, beginning with 1,200 slaves, which after 5-6 years, will be gained to 6,000 slaves (an obol a day of profits supposed per slave leading to 60 talents a year per slave, for which 20 talents is invested in new slaves to purchase and 40 talents is reserved for extra public expense). He sees that in time, 10,000 slaves will produce 100 talents a year in profit per slave, and so Xenophon maintains the view of perpetual and expontential growth from silver.

In chapter 5, Xenophon makes the appeal of peace to Greece in general, for it is in peace that wealth grows, while in war, it is spent. Thus, Xenophon links the rise in taxation as the means to wage war, which is commonly true as a matter of fact in history.

Aristotle's "Rhetoric" (~350 BCE) concerns the relation between "relative goodness and relative utility". He begins by seeing that what is relative must be quantitative, for if one compares one thing with another, it regards what each must possess, for one to be "greater" or "less" than the other. Thus, he regards that what is greater must at once contain lesser, and more, while the lesser is included in the greater. This is not at once a measure of goodness however, for as he writes, what must be good is desired for its own sake, and so can be said to be absolute. As yet, there are "greater" goods than others, for if we take what is good, and see that more of this is capable in one thing than another, then it follows that some things are better than others. Aristotle gives a causal relationship to this, by seeing that effects are the results of primary causes, and so what is primary to the effect of the good is itself a greater good, thus, although Life does not necessarily produce health, health is a product of life, and so Life is a greater good than health (since, remembering the initial argument, what is greater contains the lesser, and more - so Life contains both health, and sickness). He circles this back to the ethical argument, that what is pursued for its own sake is an end in-itself, and so is self-sufficient, so has necessity rather than contingency. The good, then, is a cause of itself, making it best. Aristotle considers this between means and ends, seeing that while the original cause of an action has primacy, what is secondary still constitutes the action. The potential and actual then imply each other.

From this, Aristotle compares the relativity of goodness, between attributes of contrasting magnitudes; he states for example that "what is rare is a greater good than what is plentiful" (since it is desired for its own sake), continuing, "gold is a better thing than iron, though less useful: it is harder to get, and therefore better worth getting". Thus, the good and the useful are contrasted, but by a strange argument, for if the good is defined as a proportionally useless thing, then utility cannot be an attribute of goodness. Aristotle abridges the argument by declaring that the measure of the goodness of the gold is the difficulty of its extraction and production, which corresponds to scarcity. What then, is the primary cause of gold's virtue? It's rarity or its production costs? Aristotle writes that gold is "better worth getting" due to the fact that it is "harder to get", so then, it must be the cost of production which is the cause of its rarity, which is then the attribute of virtue, given a common measure between the rare and abdundant. He clearly sees that utility is proportional to abundance, as we read after; "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." He re-states this relativity: "the hard thing is better than the easy, because it is rarer: and reversely, the easy thing is better than the hard, for it is as we wish it to be." But adds this condition to it: "That is the greater good whose contrary is the greater evil, and whose loss affects us more." So then, is he implying that the rare is better because its loss is more painful than otherwise? Of course, this is entirely true, that though gold is much less useful than iron, it is valued much more highly.

After this, he begins to develop an argument that what is desired most generally must be that which is greater, which with continuity with previous comments, must therefore be desired for its own sake (himself declaring that the greatest pleasure is that which is least painful). Is the quality of gold which is virtuous (i.e. pleasurable) its rarity, however? It appears impossible that the less useful is at once more pleasurable, since how else can one measure utility besides the capacity for common pleasure, or function? Aristotle concludes likewise: "honor is, as it were, a measure of value". This appears to be rather tautological, because if the value of gold derives from its honourable qualities (e.g. rarity) then Aristotle is basically saying that "its value is its value".

Aristotle still continues however, seeing that a whole is greater for the sake of its many parts, applying this notion to what may be measured in value. He applies this to the greater effort of producing gold than other things, seeing that its value is then correspondent to the chain of its causes, which must then add "importance". He further adds that what is harder to come by is more "natural" than "acquired", despite gold's production. Is he now insinuating that it is the natural scarcity of gold which is its measure of value, rather than its acquirement? If so, he falls into blatant absurdity, for what is rare by nature can never necessitate value. He ends by more comparisons as to relative virtue, never quite concluding on this issue, but he has already said enough, for what he has admitted is that while gold is able to exchange for more than iron, it is less useful, which is in succession to comments from Xenophon. Additionally, Aristotle sees that utility often increases with abundance, with the inverse also being true, creating an absolute separation between value in use and value in exchange, and both being antagonistic.

In Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" (~340 BCE) Aristotle deals with the notion of reciprocal justice (from earlier discourses on the Pythagoreans) and associates this directly with commodity exchange, which he sees as a means to create equivalence in trade between buyer and seller (e.g. one gives and takes by mutual engagement). Aristotle begins by seeing that as far as justice is concerned, where evil is inflicted, it is sought to be returned in proportion, lest men are reckoned as slaves by this inequality. On trade, he begins by defining the terms that between A(b) and C(d) are two producers (A,B) and their products (b,d), which by (i) "proportionate equality of goods" and (ii) "reciprocal action", we see "proportionate return" or "exchange" occur. He adds that without equality, one cheats the other, for one gains from the others' loss, and so for trade to be mutually beneficial, it must entail an equality of goods traded. He further stipulates that trade must begin by a diversity of goods, and so a division of labour - thus, the variables of trade are given in his initial example (Ab:Cd) - this of course is the Marxist "form of value" (value-form) which Marx claims Aristotle is the discoverer of. He uses this abstract model in 4 modes, ending in money (Ax=By).

Between the differences of production there must be something common to them however, as Aristotle writes, for how else can A(b) equate with C(d)? Aristotle sees that it is money which completes this purpose, which he calls an "intermediate" (t. "medium"). Aristotle says that this suffices because money is able to "measure" the value of products and so convert them into prices, and this is what makes trade possible. He elaborates however and reveals that what is really common to each product is "demand", with money acting as the representative of demand (i.e. value). Aristotle speaks more on money, seeing it not as a "natural" object with intrinsic value, but as something established by law or convention (for which he traces the etymology of money as "nomisma" to "nomos"). Aristotle therefore says that it is in the power of the state to change money or make it useless, and so he can only summon money as valuable by decree (fiat). This of course was a standard understanding of money in the ancient world, moving into Ancient Rome, but what later becomes mystified in modernity, even to Marx (an illusion which Engels doesn't appear to have).

Aristotle speaks on equality pertaining to the "work" of each respective producer, yet only measures value in money by a quantity of "demand", which appears to lack the counterpart of "supply". Of course, one cannot demand a product without it being supplied, and the "work" of the producer is equated with the demand, so the meaning of Aristotle appears to be understood. Now we come to Aristotle speaking of commensurability, whereby he writes that (b) and (d) find no means to be commensurated… Besides their being demanded. This is unfortunately obfuscated by Marx (Capital Vol. 1, Ch. 1, Sct. 3) where he implies that Aristotle defeats himself, yet Aristotle is perfectly consistent. As he says, without demand, there can be no exchange, so what unifies products being exchanged is their mutual demand. Aristotle then concludes by implying that money as a medium simply facilitates exchange, but itself has no value of its own. It represents other commodities. He says for example that where A(b) = B(d) this trade will have occured before money, and so money as an intermediate simply equates them as a common unit. Money is the "measure" of value, so cannot be a value.

For Aristotle's "Politics" (~330 BCE, we will solely regard content which appears relevant to political economy. Aristotle first writes (Bk. 1, Ch. 3) that man is the only creature with the power of speech and its this which also grants him his political nature (by distinction from mere animal, which can only signify pleasure or pain). Aristotle makes a consistent argument in De Anima ("On the Soul") where he says that it is the complexity of man's sense of taste which proves his rationality (more than his eyes, which are evidently inferior to other creatures). It is the tongue (rather than the thumb) which to Aristotle is man's anatomical distinction. This has relevance due to Plato's earlier comments of associating the power of language with profit (via Hermes), with each entailing the infinity of circulation - this is also continuous of later discourses, such as in "The Wealth of Nations" (1776).

After this (Bk. 1, Ch. 4) Aristotle categorises two forms of property: (i) "instruments of production" and (ii) "instruments of action", writing "The shuttle [which is used for making beds and garments], for example, is not only of use; but something else is made by it, whereas of a garment or of a bed there is only the use." Thus we have an understanding of the means and ends of consumption, such that Plato divides between the potential and active cause of production (Aristotle says that the shuttle is "not only of use" implying its "productive consumption", e.g. mill, 1821). We may then syncretise these views, where we begin with a master providing capital in the contribution of his instruments of production, which are then worked on by labour. This finally produces instruments of action to consume.

Beginning in (Bk. 1, Ch. 8-9) Aristotle seeks to discern the difference between "Economics" (Household Management) and "Wealth-Getting" (Chrematistics). He distinguishes between what is obtained either from nature or from acquisition, putting Economics in the place of acquisition (e.g. as opposed to hunting). He also designates Chrematistics as a mode of acquisition, but distinguishes them by their limits on gaining wealth; Economy deals in a limited concept of wealth, while Chrematistics deals with an unlimited concept (what Marx later signifies as C-M-C/M-C-M). In explaining the difference between them, he begins by describing the two uses of a thing (e.g. a shoe). Its primary use is to be worn, while its secondary use is to be exchanged (i.e. use-value and exchange-value). This concurs with Xenophon, who wrote that what is useful to the owner is consumed while what is useless to him is sold, and so in turn, becomes useful, but for another (this is also how Smith, Marx and Menger describe the origin of trade). Aristotle calls the primary use "proper" and the second use "improper", with exchange arising out of what is "natural" in the qualities of the object (Marx adopts this framework by calling the use-value of a commodity its "natural" form, as opposed to its "value" or social form).

After this, Aristotle gives his logical anthropology as to the process by which use-value turns to exchange-value, which he describes occuring from a self-sufficient community establishing a division of labour, which over time leads to the trading of commodities (he repeats this in Nichomachaen Ethics, Bk. 5, Ch. 5, which is also where Marx gets his "form of value" from; e.g. Ax=By). Aristotle says that first comes barter, then money, which is first set by standard weights of metal, but then comes to be treated as fiat denomination (what is profoundly unclear in this exposition is the time-frame he is dealing with, since the coining of money in Greece had only started around 2 centuries before). Aristotle says that with the advent of money do we get retail trade, for which Chrematistics is closely related. Nevertheless, Aristotle sees that "unnatural" relations can only begin by money (such that he says that though money can purchase any commodity, it is worthless in itself, and so like the fable of Midas, a man may starve from his abundance of gold). Thus he contrasts Chrematistics (as an art of gaining coin) from other forms of riches. Here, Aristotle thus formally opposes the Economic, as the "natural" way of getting wealth, to Chrematistics, as unnatural, and necessarily initiated by exchange (Aristotle says however that barter is "natural" and only coin leads to what is unnatural, but without itself being evil - Marx would see this as "alienation" which comes to comprise the social universe, as man loses himself). To conclude on this point then, we see that Chrematistics comes from viewing money as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end; the difference lies in treating the composite uses of objects between their primary and secondary aspects, which causes different results (Marx quotes Virgil on this - "auri sacra fames", which is the "greed for gold"; a form of civilised insanity. Max Weber equally cites Benjamin Franklin in this regard, that the maxim "time is money" as moral imperative produces a life of pious, yet idolatrous worship of Mammon, "the root of all evil". Of course, it is foolish to suppose nothing priestly in the temperance of the saver, who as Marx says, worships humanity's "Real God", which if we take the Platonic claim, is Hermes).

In (Bk. 1, Ch. 10) Aristotle re-states: "There are two sorts of wealth-getting, as I have said; one is a part of household management, the other is retail trade: the former necessary and honorable, while that which consists in exchange is justly censured; for it is unnatural, and a mode by which men gain from one another. The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is ap-plied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural."

This is the end of theory, and now (Bk. 1, Ch. 11) he denotes the classification of wealth-getting into its practical aspects. According to its natural part are: (i) Livestock and (ii) Husbandry. Of the unnatural portion: (i) Commerce (transport and marketing), (ii) Usury and (iii) Hiring Labour. He leaves room for an intermediary form however, which partakes of both aspects, which is earthly industries, such as wood-cutting and mining. After this, he admittedly says that while this has general correctness, it cannot cover all areas of wealth-getting. After this, Aristotle speaks upon Thales (often thought of as the first philosopher) as having a "financial device" which allowed him to become rich. Aristotle tells the story that because of his astrological skills, he could predict a great yield of olives in the next spring (it was currently winter), so he bought up plots at a much discounted price, selling his later produce in order to make a profit. Aristotle identifies this as "monopoly" and says that it is often used as a means for wealth.

This constitutes the majority of Aristotle's economic writings in "Politics", but a few more citations will be adequate to demonstrate Aristotle's view. In (Bk. 3, Ch. 6-10) and (Bk. 4, Ch. 11) we see Aristotle display a Platonic view of the forms of state which are possible (Plato describes these in "Statesman", as being 3; monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, but which each also possess an unlawful character, making 6, with the 7th being the ideal form, which cannot be actualised - thus, the forms of government are under temporal rule, so move into each other. Plato describes this moreso in Republic, where each state moves from the best to worst by a process of unlawfulness and class conflict). Aristotle expands this discourse by seeing how these forms inherently relate to class representation in power. He further sees that what is most stabilising is for the middle class to expand, so as to reduce wealth inequality between the high and low (Aristotle utilises his "golden mean" for this judgement). He thus advocates for the redistribution of wealth and property, since an ideal constitution is friendship (rather than romance, lets say - Friendship is also the "platonic relationship" described in Lysis), and all things are shared between friends (Aristotle ammends Plato on this point by seeing how Plato's erotic political notion in Symposium is inadequate for perfection; t. Bk. 2, Ch. 4). Aristotle thus gives a cause as to civic destabilisation being based in wealth inequality, such that he famously declares, "poverty is the parent of revolution and crime" (Bk. 2, Ch. 6). Plato also gives attribution to this in his Republic, that tyranny is the result of the poor rebelling against the rich, but in their place, creates dictatorship. So then, Aristotle was conscious of economic disparity, such as in later writing, e.g. "Problems", that the charge of theft was more severe than murder, for theft lead to the death penalty, while murder only resulted in fines, and so it appears that already, man's alienated property aspired to greater civil protections than his own life.

Ancient Economics: Aristotle (Economics, Bk. 1-3)

(Pseudo-)Aristotle's "Economics" (~320 BCE) begins by a distinction between economics (household management) and politics, by a difference in the number of rulers: "politics involves a number of rulers, whereas the sphere of economics is a monarchy." This he repeats in "Politics", that the Father is monarch over his household, yet may still be "constitutional" toward his wife (where he says that the barbarian races have gender equality because they are uncivilised, the same as "warlike" races, who also permit homosexuality, like the Spartans or Celts, who allowed women in positions of power, which Aristotle disapproved of as destabilising; t. Politics, Bk. 2, Ch. 9). So then, Aristotle sees that the household has one form, but a state may have many forms. He continues: "Now a city is an aggregate made up of households […] It is evident, therefore, that economics is prior in origin to politics; for its function is prior, since a household is part of a city." So then, economics precedes politics.

In defining the household, Aristotle begins (Bk. 1, Ch. 2): "The parts of a household are man and property", quoting Hesiod in this regard, "First and foremost a house, a woman, and an ox for the plough" (Works and Days, line 405). Aristotle then describes the order of natural art, beginning with agriculture (this is described more thoroughly in Politics, Bk. 1, Ch. 11). Aristotle speaks ironically of agriculture as a "liberal" (free) art, for it cultivates manliness in strength, yet the master divides this labour amongst his slaves. The slave is thought of as both lesser and greater than the master by Aristotle, it seems. This is a contradiction in virtue. After this (Bk. 1, Ch. 3), Aristotle describes how reason forces co-operation and mutual advantage, first between man and wife, but also between child and parent, in that what is given to the child is re-paid by the care of parents in their old age. Aristotle perceives that these opposed attributes then allow for the development of each, which he also associates with a division of labour. Nature has endowed men and women with different qualities, he writes, such that by man's strength and bravery, he operates externally to the household, while women operate within it (e.g. hunter/gatherer). He further sees that while women nurture children, men educate them. So the division of labour begins in nature, by the sexes.

Aristotle opens (Bk. 1, Ch. 5) with: "Of possessions, that which is the best and the worthiest subject of economics comes first and is most essential—I mean, man. It is necessary therefore first to provide oneself with good slaves. Now slaves are of two kinds, the overseer and the worker […] And since we see that methods of education produce a certain character in the young, it is necessary when one has procured slaves to bring up carefully those to whom the higher duties are to be entrusted." So then, a further division of labour is marked in production, according to the role which one possesses, and is constituted by levels of education. Further, Aristotle sets separate wages for these slaves: "To the higher class of slaves he ought to give some share of honour, and to the workers abundance of nourishment." And so even within the class of slaves is a hierarchy, constituted by a division of labour which confers different rates of pay. Inequality then begins here. He continues: "Three things make up the life of a slave, work, punishment, and food. […] It remains therefore to give them work and sufficient food; for it is impossible to rule without offering rewards, and a slave’s reward is his food. And just as all other men become worse when they get no advantage by being better and there are no rewards for virtue and vice, so also is it with servants. Therefore we must take careful notice and bestow or withhold everything, whether food or clothing or leisure or punishments, according to merit". So then, Aristotle has a theory of wages which is based in the merit of the slave, and he sees that they ought to be paid in equivalence of this effort. He also sees that offering freedom will motivate them to work harder, so it is advisory to do so. He also suggests that slaves ought to be permitted to have children for the sake of ingratiating them to their master. So, Aristotle sees that slaves ought to be treated well if you want them to be the most productive to various ends.

Departing, we move to (Bk. 1, Ch. 6) where Aristotle describes the four roles in relation to wealth: (i) Acquirement, (ii) Guardianship, (iii) Ordering and (iv) Utilisation (for which Aristotle claims is the ends of wealth - it should also be said that Aristotle in Politics says that having too much acquirement causes a lack of proportional guardianship, so with more wealth either comes more dispossession or tyranny. This is also why the ownership of property has its natural limits, but also its legal limits; theft then often appears as reclamation). The economist, he says, ought to distinguish his property between what is "productive" and "unproductive" (t. "instruments of production" and "instruments of action", Politics Bk. 1, Ch. 4). He also compares different National economies, saying that he prefers the Attic, because of its commodity exchange.

Aristotle begins the next book (Bk. 2, Ch. 1) by dividing the 4 different kinds of economy. I would quote it directly, but it is staggeringly ineloquent. So then, to summarise what is written: There are 4 kinds of economy: (1) Royal Economy, (2) Satrapic Economy, (3) Political Economy¹ and (4) Individual Economy. Of the (1) Royal Economy, there are 4 kinds of consideration: (i) Coinage, (ii) Exports, (iii) Imports and (iv) Expenditure. Of (2) Satrapic Economy, there are 6 kinds of revenue: (i) Land-Tax, (ii) City-Products, (iii) Merchandise, (iv) Poll-Tax, (v) Animal-Tax and (vi) Market-Dues. Of (3) Political Economy, there are 3 revenues: (i) Country-Products, (ii) Customs and (iii) Ordinary Taxes. Finally is (4) Individual Economy, with 3 general sources of revenue: (i) Land, (ii) Regular Activity and (iii) Money-Investment. [¹"Political Economy" = "Economy of the City/Polis"].

In (Bk. 2, Ch. 2) he goes through different examples of states and how they sorted economic matters. It is purely anecdotal and provides no great theory, so I will not relate any of this content. The final part (Bk. 3, Ch. 1-4) is nothing besides a patriarchal list of rules for how a wife ought to obey her husband, and how conversely, a husband ought to be loyal to his wife. It is not economic in any sense that we understand the term today.

In Summa Theologica, ii-ii, Q.77-78 (1274 CE), Aquinas discusses the "justice" of exchange (t. Aristotle's Ethics, 5.5) which concerns the equality of value in buying and selling between members. He counterposes just price with usury. We may read his summary of Q.77 here: "We must now consider those sins which relate to voluntary commutations. First, we shall consider cheating, which is committed in buying and selling: secondly, we shall consider usury, which occurs in loans." The 4 articles he sets out are: (1) Of unjust sales as regards the price; namely, whether it is lawful to sell a thing for more than its worth? (2) Of unjust sales on the part of the thing sold; (3) Whether the seller is bound to reveal a fault in the thing sold? (4) Whether it is lawful in trading to sell a thing at a higher price than was paid for it? We shall give his response to these 4 points.

In Article (1), he answers that "It is altogether sinful to have recourse to deceit in order to sell a thing for more than its just price, because this is to deceive one's neighbor so as to injure him", and as he writes, the purpose of exchange is mutual benefit, and so it is sinful to have one-sided gain. In defining what a thing is worth he makes distinction into two properties, he posits that "the quality of a thing that comes into human use [e.g. use-value] is measured by the price given for it [e.g. exchange-value]", and so he appears to see that the price for any thing is a given fact of it, yet how ought one distinguish between a false and real price? He says that a thing's "worth" ought to be equal to its "price", and so we advance, but how do we determine worthiness? In his reply to Objection 1, he states that laws are in place to protect buyers and sellers from being cheated, such as when either of them engage in unjust exchange (exchange which mismatches price from worth/value), and so a standard of value must exist beyond mere market price, to bring it in alignment with its real price. Is Aquinas saying that a commodity has inherent worth, or that the law regulates the worth of commodities? He elaborates: "the just price of things is not fixed with mathematical precision, but depends on a kind of estimate". But what is estimated and who estimates?

In Article (2) Aquinas lists the faults of a commodity which thus devalues its worth, and so makes it unjust to sell at the standard price of that thing. He first says that a defect in its substance (such as mixing wine with water) dilutes and impurifies it, and so makes it lesser. Another defect he lists is a false report of the quantity of the thing sold, and the final is like the first, which is a false report on the qualities of things sold (e.g. sick animals sold as healthy animals). We see that injustice in these cases is the false appearance of what is exchanged in mind for a real appearance, given in price. Injustice then, is giving a false price for a real price.

In his reply to Objection 1, he states that, "Gold and silver are costly not only on account of the usefulness of the vessels and other like things made from them, but also on account of the excellence and purity of their substance" directly linking cost to usefulness. This is contrary to Aristotle's own view however, who claimed that Iron is more useful than Gold, with the expensive quality of Gold merely being its scarcity, which Aquinas makes no comment on. So then, is it usefulness by which we measure the worth of something? In reply to Objection 2, Aquinas does comment upon supply and says that it is the quantity of supplied goods which acts as a measure of their worth, yet he also says that the just price of goods must be set by the state, as well as by custom, and that it is these which establish value. So then, standard prices are set by the state, and it is this which Aquinas appears to see as the basis of worth, but can a state not likewise set a false price for a real one? In reply to Objection 3, Aquinas invokes Augustine with a reference from "City of God", Bk.11, Ch.16 (426 CE) in which two values are set upon things, one according to (i) Nature and the other according to (ii) Need, or desire. Augustine writes that although Man may be a better thing by Nature, he is less worthy than a jewell in terms of price, and Aquinas adapts this into his current argument, claiming "the price of things salable does not depend on their degree of nature, since at times a horse fetches a higher price than a slave; but it depends on their usefulness to man." This again is contradictory, since as Aquinas must imply from previous comments, that which is in most abundance must have a lesser worth, but what is most plentiful must be used most. If I am misinterpreting him, then it does not explain why Gold is worth more than silver, if it has a lesser supply.

In Article (3), reply to Objection 4, Aquinas makes interesting comment, that where competition exists, prices will stabilise at a newer rate (e.g. equilibrium) and so the value of a good is relative to this factor. Combined with earlier comments, Aquinas appears to provide a more sophisticated account of the worth of things thus, which is relative, not absolute.

In Article (4) he answers with extensive reference to Aristotle (Politics, Bk. 1, Ch. 3) in viewing the immorality of the tradesman, yet Aquinas says that there is nothing inherently sinful in trading if it be lawful, and so be a means to a different end than profit itself. When trade is for profit alone, it is sinful, but not if it is for public good. Here is a concluding remark: "a man may take to trade for some public advantage, for instance, lest his country lack the necessaries of life, and seek gain, not as an end, but as payment for his labor." This seems ambiguous, for he is either referring to the labour of the tradesman himself, or those who are hired by tradesman. In his reply to Objection 3, he says that it is improper that Clerics ought to make a profit, for it is a business with an evil end, and so is a secular affair. This is the end of Summa ii-ii, Q.77, so we shall proceed.

In Summa ii-ii, Q.78, the 4 articles concerned with "The Sin of Usury" are as follows: (1) Whether it is a sin to take money as a price for money lent, which is to receive usury? (2) Whether it is lawful to lend money for any other kind of consideration, by way of payment for the loan? (3) Whether a man is bound to restore just gains derived from money taken in usury? (4) Whether it is lawful to borrow money under a condition of usury?

In Article 1 he makes this answer: "To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice […] Accordingly if a man wanted to sell wine separately from the use of the wine, he would be selling the same thing twice, or he would be selling what does not exist, wherefore he would evidently commit a sin of injustice. In like manner he commits an injustice who lends wine or wheat, and asks for double payment, viz. one, the return of the thing in equal measure, the other, the price of the use, which is called usury." Thus, Usury counts as a "double payment"; a payment for what is, and what is not, according to what is consumed in the substance thereof. Aquinas relates this to rent, which in the place of a dwelling charges for the use of something, without its consumption, and so entails inequality - yet Aquinas says that this is lawful, for the property owner permits the conditional use of his property to a tenant ("usufruct"). It is lawful, but is it just? Aquinas makes no comment. So then, we may divide the forms of exchange between (i) Justice and (ii) Injustice (including Usury), with the forms of the use of commodities being (i) Consumption and (ii) Usufruct. Rent necessarily counts as a form of usufruct, wherein something is used, but is not permitted to be consumed (destroyed). This is "lawful" but must also be unjust, for nothing equivalent is given, so then, law cannot decide justice. Aquinas admits this in his reply to Objection 3, where he writes: "Human laws leave certain things unpunished […] Wherefore human law has permitted usury, not that it looks upon usury as harmonizing with justice, but lest the advantage of many should be hindered." He also calls Usury "quasi-usufruct", and so we see that to Aquinas, Usury, like Rents, are unjust, but legally given.

Ibn Khaldun's "Mudadimmah" (1377 CE) is a book ranging many topics, but what concerns economics is Chapter 5, "On the (Various) Aspects of Making A Living…" Which is said by some (e.g. Paul Cockshott) as having a Labour Theory of Value. Indeed, (Ch. 5, Sct. 1) opens with the description, "Profit is the value realized from human labor", but we must read more. He begins by seeing that Man must acquire the produce of the world, and beyond this, must trade. Khaldun thinks this is a natural outgrowth of his powers, and for which purpose man makes profit, originally by "barter". Ibn imagines that there is "profit" gained from nature alone, however, such as rainfall which makes plants grow, and for which he says that man's efforts must be combined with it (e.g. William Petty, 1662). Khaldun defines two sorts of "profit" then, one according to need and the other being "capital accumulation", given from extending beyond his needs. He divides these two things between consumption (sustenance) and accumulation (profit). He then attributes "profit" to two forms in the same manner, between "sustenance" and "accumulation", seeing them as caused by acquirement (property) which he sees as based in labour, fundamentally. He adds that gold and silver are the measures of value (of all capital accumulation) and that "they are the basis of profit, property, and treasure", conflicting with earlier claims. He does say that "The labor and expenditures that have gone into them show themselves in the price of grain" seemingly referring to a cost of production theory. He concludes on these words: "It has thus become clear that gains and profits, in their entirety or for the most part, are value realized from human labor. The meaning of the word "sustenance" has become clear. It is (the part of the profit) that is utilized." We may define terms.

To Khaldun then, it appears that any gain (or "profit") is due to labour, by the acquirement of property (t. Locke). Of property, there are two modes, use (consumption) and conservation (accumulation), or "sustenance" and "profit" proper. These things are measured by money, which requires gold and silver to value them. The price of things are also composed of their expenditure, and so the cost of production is returned as cost to consumers. With this, we can move into the second section.

Section 2 concerns "Livelihood" (ma'ash). Here he lists different ways that sustenance and profit may be obtained, including taxation, attained through political power ("imarah"; which he properly calls a form of customary theft, or appropriation, and in the manner of Al-Harari calls "unnatural", while the rest are natural). Other means of gaining a livelihood are: (i) hunting and fishing, (ii) agriculture, (iii) craft and (iv) commerce (of which he writes: "observing the market fluctuations which affect it" - he speaks later on supply and demand and the principles of mercantile profit in this way). Of the different means of making a living, he calls Agriculture the primary (for which he says there is no theoretical knowledge necessary), and so ascribes its invention to Adam. Of crafts he attributes it to Idris, and of commerce he continues: "[it is] designed to obtain the (profit) margin between purchase prices and sales prices. This surplus makes it possible to earn a profit. Therefore, the law permits cunning in commerce, since (commerce) contains an element of gambling. It does not, however, mean taking away the property of others without giving anything in return. Therefore, it is legal."

In Section 3 he elaborates the notion of Imarah, seeing that political authority must seek to employ "soldiers, policemen, and secretaries" and for which "[he] will provide for their sustenance from the treasury", which are means of making a living by primary appropriation (e.g. Smith's "unproductive labour"). On servants, Khaldun claims that the luxurious grow pridefulness in their idleness, so hire others (for which they are paid a wage). Khaldun comments that it is "unmanly" to depend on the labour of others in this way. On discussing servants, Khaldun says that only the best are paid the highest wages (like Aristotle claims) and so only the wealthiest may afford the greatest service. In Section 4 he gives examples of scams which people pepetrate, namely giving treasure hunters maps to buried treasure, and with magical spells to unlock wealth - of which he calls an unnatural livelihood.

In Section 5, he discusses those of high rank, and that they get rich from the unpaid labour of those who serve them, such as he writes: "People help him with their labor in all his needs, whether these are necessities, conveniences, or luxuries. The value realized from all such labor becomes part of his profit. For tasks that usually require giving some compensation (to the persons who perform them), he always employs people without giving anything in return. He realizes a very high value from their labor. It is (the difference) between the value he realizes from the (free) labor (products) and the prices he must pay for things he needs. He thus makes a very great (profit). A person of rank receives much (free) labor which makes him rich in a very short time." In Section 6 he also sees that the value of labour is based on its division, and demand: "The value realized from one's labor corresponds to the value of one's labor and the value of (this labor) as compared to (the value of) other labor and the need of the people for it." In Section 7, he explains that this is the reason why priests are not generally wealthy, "the common people have no compelling need for the things that religious (officials) have to offer." So then, demand is what drives value.

In Section 9, Khaldun returns to commerce and makes this judgement: "It should be known that commerce means the attempt to make a profit by increasing capital, through buying goods at a low price and selling them at a high price, whether these goods consist of slaves, grain, animals, weapons, or clothing material. The accrued (amount) is called "profit" (ribh)." So then, (ribh) is the result of "market fluctations" as said earlier. He continues in Section 10: "When goods are few and rare, their prices go up […] they will be found in large quantities, and the prices will go down." So then, he perceives the fact of supply and demand in pricing. He also looks at hoarding, or monopoly, in Section 11. In Section 12 he also sees how low prices (due to excess supply) leads to lesser profits, so is harmful to mercants. He somewhat invokes class war in this regard, between affordability and profitability: "Likewise, while the prices of sugar and honey remain low, everything connected with (these commodities) is adversely affected, and the merchants who deal in it stop trading […] Low prices for grain, and of other things that are traded, are praised, because the need for grain is general and people, the rich as well as the poor, are compelled to buy food. Dependent people constitute the majority of people in civilization." Of merchants in general, he comments in Section 14 that they tend toward wickedness and so inferior in manliness.

Beginning in Section 15, Khaldun discusses crafts, for which he says: "It should be known that a craft is the habit of something concerned with action and thought […] A habit is a firmly rooted quality acquired by doing a certain action and repeating it time after time, until the form of (that action) is firmly fixed […] The mind, (however,) does not cease transforming all kinds of (crafts), including the composite ones, from potentiality into actuality through the gradual discovery of one thing after the other, until they are perfect." These two causes of craftsmanship are reminiscent of Plato. In Section 16, Khaldun discusses the development of craft from the simple to the composite by a development of society from the "bedouin" to the "sedentary", for which he says of a developed civilisation: "Then, when the city is organized and the (available) labor increases and pays for the necessities and is more than enough (for the inhabitants), the surplus is spent on luxuries." Thus, Khaldun perceives that it is the surplus of production which leads to the higher development of craft: "When civilization flourishes and the luxuries are in demand, it includes the refinement and development of the crafts." The survival of craft depends on the rate of its demand, however, as he writes in Section 18, but also adds that by subsidy, crafts may persist: "it is the ruling dynasty that demands crafts and their improvement. It causes the demand for them and makes them desirable. Crafts not in demand with the dynasty may be in demand with the other inhabitants of a city. However, that would not be the same thing, for the dynasty is the biggest market."

Craftsmanship which is established by habit also gives fixity in the soul, as he adds in Section 21, which denotes the limiting powers of a division of labour, for he who is only good at one thing lacks skill in all other areas of life. In Section 22, he gives a list of some basic crafts, beginning with what is (1) Necessary: (i) Agriculture, (ii) Architecture, (iii) Tailoring, (iv) Carpentry and (v) Weaving. After this are crafts which are (2) Noble: (i) Midwifery, (ii) Writing, (iii) Publishing, (iv) Singing and (v) Medicine. On singing, he writes this in section 31: "The craft of singing is the last of the crafts attained in civilization, because it constitutes (the last development toward) luxury with regard to no occupation in particular save that of leisure and gaiety. It also is the first to disappear from a given civilization when it disintegrates and retrogresses." Thus we may understand the development of craft from necessity to luxury as bound to leisure, or general uselessness, and for which purpose, it is least conserved in times of necessity, as Khaldun tells us. This movement is implied as that of the rational soul (Sct. 32), which from potency comes to be actual through progression of the faculties. Thus what is highest of civilisation is seen as the cultivations of these powers of luxury, which as Khaldun perceives, must develop from the simple to complex. For this reason, Khaldun perceives writing and arithmetic to be the highest art and craft, for it conserves the mind by the transcription of letters and numbers, which condense mind into intelligible forms. The most simple society is therefore least educated, while the most developed society is most intelligent. Thus concludes Ibn Khaldun's economic writings.

>>2725300
Supply and Demand is just a logistical sum.
As we see with: >>2726637
Artificial scarcity regulates (effectual) supply, which can occur reversely, where if Company (A) overproduces, they can sell goods for a higher price so as to meet a margin of demand which suffices profits against production costs. For example, if one lowered prices, demand might increase, but not a rate to meet supply, so securing profits means shedding excess supply by limiting total demand. In other words, when Company (A) sheds its supply of donuts and locks up its bins, this means that they are not selling at equilibrium, but are overcharging to gain a profit. The classical theory of value maintains that with free market competition, Company (A) would be forced to meet equilibrium to take up market share, but since there is a lack of sufficient competition (e.g. Monopoly, probably due to IP, which was only legally invented in the 18th century) the business is able to raise prices, and therefore they necessarily create waste, as a measure of their gains. To put it arithmetically, if my spend £100 on creating 100 products, yet can only reasonably sell 50, then to make a profit, I must sell each product for at least £2. Some companies work with charities to give away their excess supply (when I was in a homeless hostel, a local supermarket truck dopped off goods; of course, state intervention seems necessary, either by controlling prices, or legally possessing the surplus of business. Raising aggregate demand by monetary stimulation also serves similar ends, which is why cutting welfare is short-sighted, since the entire economy shrinks).

Mods, put smith anon inside a rocket and launch it into the sun.

>>2726637
Ibn Khaldun (c. 1337 CE) also writes on the conflict between profit and production in the Muqadimmah (Ch. 5, Sct. 10-12), where he sees that the abundance of goods leads to less profits, and so a decline in trade, yet the abundance of goods is beneficial for the public:
<When goods are few and rare, their prices go up […] they will be found in large quantities, and the prices will go down. […] When the prices of any type of goods […] remain low and the merchant cannot profit from any fluctuation of the market affecting these things, his profit and gain stop if the situation goes on for a long period. […] Likewise, while the prices of sugar and honey remain low, everything connected with (these commodities) is adversely affected, and the merchants who deal in it stop trading. […] Low prices for grain, and of other things that are traded, are praised, because the need for grain is general and people, the rich as well as the poor, are compelled to buy food. Dependent people constitute the majority of people in civilization.
https://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Chapter5/Ch_5_10.htm
https://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Chapter5/Ch_5_12.htm
This then demonstrates an elementary division between use-value and exchange-value, which is understood by class struggle. The internal opposition of a commodity's qualities is recognised as early as the Ancient Greeks, such as in Xenophon (360 BCE) and Aristotle (330 BCE).

>>2726944
>Raising aggregate demand by monetary stimulation also serves similar ends, which is why cutting welfare is short-sighted, since the entire economy shrinks

sh-shut up. the handouts will stop libtard. except for israel, because god blesses those who bless israel. economics 101 baby

>>2728412
let him cook

>>2728415
the food is long past burnt

Smith Anon, since you read authors with a fine toothed comb and highly critical acumen, I wanted to know if you had ever read Carlo Cafiero's summary of Capital Volume 1. I find this to be an interesting historical anomaly because I have seen anons on here criticize Cafiero's summary for revising and/or deviating from and/or oversimplifying Marx, but Marx himself seems to not have been troubled by it, and responded positively to it while he was still alive. But Cafiero himself was an anarchist trying to build a Marxist/Bakuninist synthesis, something Marx probably would have disliked had he known, especially since this was after Marx's works written against Bakunin in the early 1870s.

>>2725300
A 500 year old scam. The other day I was reading one of the last things David Graeber wrote, an essay on how economics/classical PE has been fraudulent since the 16th century debates on exogenous vs endogenous money that have been raging on forever, and how the monetarist liberals keep "winning" it without evidence. Aka the side that benefits the rich and punishes the workers
>To put it bluntly: QTM is obviously wrong. Doubling the amount of gold in a country will have no effect on the price of cheese if you give all the gold to rich people and they just bury it in their yards, or use it to make gold-plated submarines (this is, incidentally, why quantitative easing, the strategy of buying long-term government bonds to put money into circulation, did not work either). What actually matters is spending. Nonetheless, from Bodin’s time to the present, almost every time there was a major policy debate, the QTM advocates won. In England, the pattern was set in 1696, just after the creation of the Bank of England, with an argument over wartime inflation between Secretary of the Treasury William Lowndes, Sir Isaac Newton (then warden of the mint), and the philosopher John Locke. Newton had agreed with the treasury that silver coins had to be officially devalued to prevent a deflationary collapse; Locke took an extreme monetarist position, arguing that the government should be limited to guaranteeing the value of property (including coins) and that tinkering would confuse investors and defraud creditors. Locke won. The result was deflationary collapse. A sharp tightening of the money supply created an abrupt economic contraction that threw hundreds of thousands out of work and created mass penury, riots, and hunger. The government quickly moved to moderate the policy (first by allowing banks to monetize government war debts in the form of bank notes, and eventually by moving off the silver standard entirely), but in its official rhetoric, Locke’s small-government, pro-creditor, hard-money ideology became the grounds of all further political debate.
>According to Skidelsky, the pattern was to repeat itself again and again, in 1797, the 1840s, the 1890s, and, ultimately, the late 1970s and early 1980s, with Thatcher’s and Reagan’s (in each case brief) adoption of monetarism. Always we see the same sequence of events: 1. The government adopts hard-money policies as a matter of principle. 2. Disaster ensues. 3. The government quietly abandons hard-money policies. 4. The economy recovers. 5. Hard-money philosophy nonetheless becomes, or is reinforced as, simple universal common sense.

>>2729431
the __ ideas are the ideas of the __ class.

>>2729431
>its a scam
It's a shame Marx fell for the "scam" too, I guess… 🤷‍♂️
<the oscillations of market prices, rising now over, sinking now under the value or natural price, depend upon the fluctuations of supply and demand.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch02.htm#c9

>>2729264
Before reviewing the work, I want to make an introductory comment on simplification in general. Not many people know that there is a primary synopsis of Capital, written by Engels himself (1868):
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/1868-syn/
Marx also makes early comment as to the serialisation of Capital by French editors in the 1872 preface:
<I applaud your idea of publishing the translation of “Das Kapital” as a serial. In this form the book will be more accessible to the working class, a consideration which to me outweighs everything else.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p2.htm
Thus, Marx clearly cared for simple presentation and exposition, despite his verbose style, as he admits of in the beginning of the 1873 preface. Of course, monopoly is often a great source of profit, which is why the esoteric is beneficial to academics, who make currency for themselves, like the priests who guard the sacred texts from the public. I have previously cited David Harvey and his purposeful problematisation of common sense in "A Companion to Capital Vol. 1" (2010), in which he makes distinction between Marx and Ricardo in nonsense terms, qualifying the adjective "socially necessary" as though it were obscure jargon which revealed the secret heart of analysis (2010):
>"Ricardo appealed to the concept of labor-time as value. Marx uses the concept of socially necessary labor­ time. What Marx has done here is to replicate the Ricardian conceptual apparatus and, seemingly innocently, insert a modification. But this insertion, as we shall see, makes a world of difference."
<Companion to Capital Vol. 1, Ch. 1, Sct. 1
Of course, we do not "see" anything which Harvey purports to give us, but he instead only heaps on confusion, opinion and misinterpretation (which I won't waste time discussing). The contradiction is clear; Marx wanted to make Capital readable to the working class, yet Harvey obscures Capital from the working class by the work of intellectualising the mundane and confusing the coherent. This is the wickedness of all those who speak against simplification and common sense. But you will notice that many people who by condescension display pity for the poor feel this way as well, that they imagine that they must spread "noble lies" to convince them of ends which are unspeakable to the common man - which in itself denotes an evil design; why would you have to lie to be convincing, unless the truth which you held was so abominable to common sentiment? Hence you will have the priestly vanguard at the pulpit, simplifying, but with an elitist disdain, and above all things, resisting inquiry as hostility. So then, are we to simplify for the sake of truth, or convenience? If for the sake of truth, we must then not have either condescension or deception; "brevity is the soul of wit".

Beginning with Carlo's Capital, we have a note upon translation, which by this time, Capital was limited to the German, Russian and French, with the first English edition being published in 1886. Marx died 3 years earlier. Carlo also gives a tragic fact that by this time (1878), Marx had failed to publish Capital Vol. 2 (1885), despite already having the groundwork and notes for Capital, cumulatively from the period of 1857-67. Of course, Engels only published the unfinished manuscript of Capital Vol. 3 in 1894, 11 years after Marx's death, and 1 year before his own demise. The unpublished "theories of surplus value" was also only brought into completion by Kautsky around 1910, and so it took over 40 years to convert Marx's notes into his "Critique of Political Economy" series (talk about procrastinating!). Many of the secondary and tertiary texts of Marx were also only published in the 20th century, largely through the USSR, by "progress publishers" (1931-). Carlo writes:
<Meanwhile Marx can fulfill his promise, giving us the second volume of Capital, which will deal with The Process of Circulation of Capital (book II), and with The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole (book III), and the fourth and final volume which will explain A History of Economic Theories.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/cafiero/1879/summary-of-capital.htm
The promise was unfortunately failed to be kept.

If we begin at the end, with Marx's reply to Carlo:
<The sincerest of thanks for the two copies of your work! At the same time I received two similar works, one written in Serbian, the other in English (published in the United States), but they both are faulty, wanting to give a succinct and popular summary of Capital and clinging, at the same time, too pedantically to the scientific form of discussion. In this way, they seem to me to miss more or less their principle purpose: that of moving the public for whom the summaries are intended.
We can see that the attempt to summarise Marx's work is still of chief interest to Marx himself, and its offers are giving, but not receiving of Marx's own praise. Marx as yet praises Carlo for his efforts:
<And here is the great superiority of your work.
He makes no comment on the content of the work itself (barring the preface) but still offers his politeness.

Beginning with Chapter 1, we have this comment:
<A commodity is an object that has two values; a use value and an exchange value, or an appropriately determined value.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/cafiero/1879/summary-of-capital.htm
This is clumsy language, but it begins in Marx himself, who by self-revision, attempts to clarify himself:
<When, at the beginning of this chapter, we said, in common parlance, that a commodity is both a use value and an exchange value, we were, accurately speaking, wrong. A commodity is a use value or object of utility, and a value. […] It never assumes this form when isolated, but only when placed in a value or exchange relation with another commodity of a different kind.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
So we can forgive Carlo for this attribution, but in calling exchange-value an "appropriately determined value" makes it a normative statement, which is misplaced vocabulary; i.e. the exchange-value of a commodity is not determined by its appropriateness, but its reality.

Next is this error:
<A commodity can never be exchanged with another, if the labor that is needed to produce one is not equal to the labor that is needed to produce the other. This law must be kept well in mind, because above it is founded everything that we will see said afterwards.
In the first place, he mistakenly implies that money is itself not a commodity according to Marx, and he also says that all trade is strictly and necessarily equivalent. If this were the case, no one could ever overcharge or under-pay, which by all common accounts, is a false assumption. But again, this problem begins in Marx, whose analysis appears to mostly concern trade at equilibrium, and so people falsely believe that the market price of goods is the same as natural price. Marx himself says that goods may be traded unevenly, like the wage, which fluctuates according to supply and demand:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/wages.htm

Next he writes:
<Carefully examining the formula of capital, it can be noted in the last analysis that the matter of the accrual of capital is resolved in the following way: finding a commodity that profits more than what it costs […] This very singular commodity indeed exists and it is called labor power, or labor force.
This is not an incorrect summary, but he only gets to what makes labour-power unique two chapters later.

He writes this:
<Now, the labor that is needed to produce labor power is equal to the labor needed to produce the things needed by the worker, and as a consequence the value of those things necessary to the worker is equal to the value of their labor power.
This is true, except that later in chapter 8, he writes that "salary cannot represent the price of labor power", appearing to confuse "labour" for "labour-power", as per the Marxist jargon, so again, we can forgive him. It must be stated, to Marx, the wage is the full and equal price of the commodity called "labour-power". This differs from the Smithian view that profit comes from underpaying labour (the same way Keynes explains depreciation as a tax on labour). The latter are British common sense, the former is contrived by this "law of exchanges" which appears to most men, as justifying exploitation. To say that "profit is not theft" is to appear complacent.

Carlo finally gets to surplus value in chapter 4:
<Labor power, producing a greater value than how much something is worth, that is a “surplus,” has created capital; enlarging then this surplus value with prolongation of the workday, has given sufficient nourishment to the capital  for its infancy. […] The work done from A-C, with which the salary’s value is produced, is necessary labor, while the work done from C-B, which produces surplus value, is called exploitation.

He then speaks of relative surplus value:
<The first was absolute surplus value, this is relative surplus value. Relative surplus value is founded upon the decreasing of necessary work; the decreasing of necessary work is founded upon the decreasing of wages; the decreasing of wages is founded upon a decrease in prices of things that are necessary for the worker; therefore relative surplus value is founded on the depreciation of the commodities that the worker uses.
This references the fact that if capital (c+v) can reduce (v) it gives a greater share to (c), relatively increasing surplus value. Relative surplus value is measured by intensity of labour, while absolute surplus value is measured by duration.

Carlo then speaks of a contingency in the law of value which appears to contradict earlier claims of necessity:
<And there would be an even quicker way of producing relative surplus value, someone will say, and that would be to pay the worker a salary less than that which he is due, that is not to pay him the proper price of his commodity, labor power. We cannot consider this expedient, used often in fact, minimally, because we aren’t admitting that it’s the most perfect observance of the law of exchange, according to which all commodities, and consequently labor power as well, must be sold and bought at their proper value.

He also speaks of the other end of relative surplus value:
<Now the capitalist needs to make himself a larger place in the market to sell a double quantity of his commodity; and you can do this by somewhat restricting the price. […] As you can see, the capitalist gains a great profit from this growth of production. […] Their extraordinary gain, however, that which represents the difference between the value of the commodity and the price at which it is sold, doesn’t last long, because right away the new or perfected system of production becomes adopted by all out of necessity.
Here, the capitalist outcompetes his competition by the intensity of labour reducing the value of commodities in the same duration, lowering the social average.

Chapter 5 is a rather flowery interval into Chapter 6, which concerns cooperation and divisions of labour. This intensity of labour then adds plentifully to the capacity of production, such as dividing the manufacture of pins into 20 separate roles, in turn, creating 20 pins in the same time that it could take to make 1. Marx also says that this is a qualitatively capitalist character of production, say, as opposed to earlier artisinal crafts, which limited production to the sufficiency of a single skilled worker (e.g. blacksmith). After this is chapter 7, where he describes (c) and (v):
<Capital is divided into constant and variable. Constant capital is that which is represented by raw materials and the means of production. […] Variable capital is that which is represented by salary, by the price that is of labor power. The first is called constant, because its value remains constant in the value of the commodity, of which it is a portion; while the second is called variable, exactly because its value grows coming in to make a portion of the value of the commodity. It is only variable capital that creates surplus value; and the machine only makes up a portion of constant capital.
And so he describes how the capitalist universe operates without the constraints of day or night:
<The capitalist, therefore, breaks down all obstacles of time with the machinery, all of the limits of the day that were imposed on labor in manufacturing. 

In chapter 9, he discusses the variation of wages:
<The accumulation of capital, therefore, makes a great number of hands useless; it creates, that is, a surplus laboring population […] produces the effect of making wages sink […] a great number of women and children come to be employed for the momentary need of capital, past which, these people go on to increase the counties’ overpopulation of workers.
He fails to discuss the counter-tendency that a rise in wages also occurs by increased demand with little supply (e.g. Ch. 25), thus linking capital investment, unemployment, and wages, as Marx attempts to do, after the initial writings by Smith on the same topic.

In chapter 10 he discusses primitive accumulation:
<And here by means of such horrors, by means of so much blood the expropriation of the agricultural population is completed, and the formation of that working class, destined to feed modern industry. […] And this is pure, or bourgeois, history, a sad history of blood, which would deserve to be well read and meditated on by you
Here I would criticise Carlo on an historical point, in that the bourgeoisie (e.g. burghers; city-dwellers) did not initiate primitive accumulation in England, it was in the country, by landed gentry, in seeking acquisition of agrarian property, that land was concentrated, and disciplined, such as against the serfs of Europe, or the slaves in the US. Marx also attests to this point.

In his conclusion, Carlo sees that revolution is a quality of all natural objects, by the laws of motion, so sees that all things in society must change. For this purpose, he sees the capitalists as reactionary:
<Now, if revolution is the law of nature, which is all, it must necessarily also be the law of humanity, which is a part of nature. […] But the bourgeoisie are too fearful and pious to be able to appeal to the natural law of revolution.
But this is rather short-sighted and un-Marxist, for ley us recall what Marx wrote of capitalist development:
<The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm
Thus to Marx, the capitalist era is exceedingly "revolutionary" in itself, with constant technological development and changing social relations. The only backslide is as Marx says, that development reaches its limit at the margin of profit, which causes destruction:
<The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm
So then, war is a necessary part of capitalist society. Carlo appears then contrary to opposition of this thinking, by bringing out a thirst for war and revolution. This of course is an infantile error of Anarchy, which supposes metaphysical transgression, but of course, our darling Heraclitus, Lao Tzu or Francois Quesnay perceive that Chaos can possess its own Order, and so what is constantly changing may retain permanence (this is vitally explored by Slavoj Zizek, who sees the proper place of passivity in deconstructing power).

So then, that would be my review of the work, which has some basic errors but is largely correct, but I would first recommend Engels' synopsis, since if anything, he was more acquainted with the source material. It is also shorter than Carlo's work, which is surprising.

On this talk of Bakunin, I will relate what I wrote concerning Zionist accusations against Marx:
>>2722058
Anarchism is twins with Fascism in my opinion, but explaining that would require a more detailed post.

>>2726971
Experiments in "free money" (Freigeld) have been previously theorised and practiced. It was first theorised by Silvio Gesell in his book "The Natural Economic Order" (1916) in which Gesell promotes the idea of money as a depreciating asset to increase spending (what we generally refer to as "inflation" nowadays). The rate of depreciation he suggested was around (5%), while most central banks today aim for (2-3%) inflation per year, which then measures "growth" according to spending. Gesell perceived that a major issue was that while money was hoarded (i.e. saved) it appreciated, at the expense of the general economy (e.g. recession), where prices fall due to a lack of demand, by a lack of money (which by the "paradox of thrift", in turn, made savings equally worthless). Thus, it is impossible that the value of money can increase proportionally to the economy and so the currency must depreciate, but so long as it depreciates at a rate which is at least equal to the rate of real growth, then it balances itself out, and so money retains its real value, while its nominal value steadily increases.

The conservative hallucination is confusing the nominal for the real, where they think that the depreciation of the dollar is inherently impoverishing, but we can dispell the trouble by an easy example: let's say that the dollar has lost 1,000% its value, since 10 cents used to buy what now costs $1, we must then assume this has happened to all things, including labour. If in the same time, median wages have moved from $1 to $10, then by proportion, the value of commodities is not at all affected by the depreciation of currency, since the real difference is still 1:1. What Marx then calls "exchange-value" we may call the "real price" of things, which is measured by adjusting wages to inflation, making the wage the primary determinant of commodity values (since it is the wage which purchases commodities). Complaints about inflation then offer an interesting insight, they are not merely economic illiteracy, they are a form of class war, of savers versus spenders.

The practice of Gesell's Freigeld occured in the village of Wörgl, 1932-33:
<Mayor Michael Unterguggenberger created an emergency program which resulted in a regional “Economic Miracle”. He used free money in accordance with Silvio Gesell’s theory. This regional currency was the first sovereign, democratically legitimized citizen´s money. Its sucess was the rapid circulation and the ability to use it to pay taxes and convert it into national currency. […] During the 13.5 months of the currency experiment, around 100 people were employed, some directly through the construction programs and some in supplier companies. The number of unemployed fell by 16% in Wörgl, while in Austria it rose by 19%. In order to avoid buying the stamps to compensate for the shrinkage, the AB notes are passed on quickly and circulate 9 to 10 times faster than the national currency, the shilling.
https://unterguggenberger.org/the-free-economy-experiment-of-woergl-1932-1933/
The experiment was ultimately terminated by the national government, because it was clearly too competitive against existing options, which required submission to the terms of the system, and those who were the masters of wages and their dispensation. Money then, is not just a tool, but a political device to enforce power. For more information, you can read Keynes' "Tract on Monetary Reform" (1923), who discusses, by illuminating lucidity, the situation, that proportional wealth is directly measured by currency holders, which divides along classes. Thus, Keynes properly calls inflation a "tax"; namely, a tax on labour. Thus, the capitalist state also uses inflation to exploit labour, by not adjusting rates of pay to inflation rates.

I'm proud to produce my second edition of an english translation for Antoine Montchretien's "Treatise on Political Economy" (1615), Book One. This book is known as the text in which the neologism "political economy" was coined, and precedes English writers such as Munn (1640s) and Petty (1662) by decades. I have divided the text into seven parts, with custom paragraphing, since the original transcript, delivered from Marcel Riviére (~1856) is poorly edited.

The term "political economy" to Montchretien refers to the continuity between economics (household management) and politics (which he perceives in opposition to Xenophon and Aristotle), from the same principle of properly organising labour (which he tasks toward politicians and public policy). Much of his focus is also based in protecting national industry against foreign competition, by mercantilist ambitions, especially against the English and Dutch, while also borrowing some of their ideas, like mass factory systems and vocational colleges. He does admit to comparative advantage in some industries however, such as in Spanish sails for ships. There are other parts of his work which are interesting, but not worth divulging at the present. In any case, I have made the study of history more accessible by this labour. 🙂👍

>>2731135
>It's a shame Marx fell for the "scam" too
Marx never fell for it, buddy. He saw that political economy was capitalist apologia. Doesn't "Critique of political economy" say anything to you?

>>2731144
fake smith. smith does not use capital letter

>>2731154
> let's say that the dollar has lost 1,000% its value, since 10 cents used to buy what now costs $1, we must then assume this has happened to all things, including labour.
in real life the prices of different commodities change at different rates, no? I have seen food and fuel get more expensive while phones become less expensive.

>>2731155
wow this place has really hardcore anons compared to 4tard

>>2731435
Marx attributes the market price of commodities being determined by supply and demand - yes or no?
Here is a primary source to help you along:
<the oscillations of market prices, rising now over, sinking now under the value or natural price, depend upon the fluctuations of supply and demand.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch02.htm
>Critique of political economy
What does this mean to you?
>>2731723
>in real life the prices of different commodities change at different rates, no?
Yes, which all relate back to the price of labour.
>I have seen food and fuel get more expensive while phones become less expensive.
The new iPhone is more expensive than the last. But in any case, the depression of the price of goods should be due to rates of supply which exceed the supply of money. If monetary inflation occurs at 5% every year, yet the price of electronics recedes at 5% then the sum must be made that the supply of electronics is at 200% the rate of supply of money, which if the rate of inflation is 2% means that electronics would have to increase their supply at a rate of 4%. A reduction in the cost of production would also be concurrent with increased supply. Other factors which might inflate food prices besides monetary depreciation is "velocity of money", which is the volume of spending within a particular market. For example, in wealthier areas, the same goods as in poor areas may be more expensive. Other factors like rent and transport costs are considered, but even in the same district, some goods sell for higher because more money is present.

Conservatives often invoke this point when they discuss minimum wage, since if the price of labour increases, then the prices of necessaries will increase, which is true, but its about rates. If the median wage increases at 5% per year yet general inflation is at 3% then goods are still more affordable at this margin. The alternative would be an "iron law" which arrested growth for the working class at subsistence levels, since profits would always be primary in considering costs, which is an inadvertent class war discourse the conservative invokes, for if he really believed that wages were not permitted to raise above a minimum standard, then doesn't this say something about the system itself, rather than the quality of labour which workers possess? (especially as he twainfold worships the unearned income of billionaires like Donald Trump). The conservative is doubly contradictory on this point, since they also oppose wage controls by unions, which according to supply and demand, will only cause a margin of unemployment (or else a lack of profits), but unemployment to the conservative ought to be a speculative asset to "job creators" - yet, labour is only received if it is maximally exploitable, that is what is unspoken in this extended narrative. What the conservative is really doing is displaying loyalty to profit. But the larger issue is that he is prescribing ends, rather than describing means. Again, if increasing real wages leads to inflationary spirals, then why would one support capitalism to begin with?

>>2731435
you're right in thinking marx had a critique of political economy. it's important to realize that marx still wanted to develop a scientific understanding of the substance and magnitude of value, and consequently he did not think prices were purely fiction, nor supply and demand. exploitation isn't merely a "scam" but a material condition of the mode of production.

>>2731435
> Doesn't "Critique of political economy" say anything to you?
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/r.htm#critique
<Critique is the practice of exposing the social basis underlying an argument. Marxist critique is generally immanent critique, that is, critique springing from inside.

<Critique differs from simply countering an argument with a different one or proving it to be wrong, in fact, critique implicitly recognises that the argument it opposes is right, but right in the context of a specific form of social practice which may not be declared.

<Immanent critique accepts the terms of a theory and pursues it thoroughly and consistently until it arrives at contradiction with itself, as must any consistent theory which pretends to be complete. This disclosure of the immanent self-contradiction implicit in a system of ideas opens the way to disclosure of its social basis and interest.

<Critique has its origin with Kant, whose Critique of Pure Reason can be said to mark the beginning of modern philosophy. For Kant, Criticism was a “third way” between dogmatism and scepticism. See his Impossibility of a Sceptical Satisfaction of Pure Reason in its Internal Conflicts. Instead of simply considering whether a given statement was true or false, Kant subjected to scrutiny the ‘categories’, the concepts themselves, through which the question was posed. Kant proved that Hume, the proponent of scepticism, was in fact dogmatic, since he denied absolutely, but without proof, the possibility of knowing the cause of things.

<Hegel was the first to develop criticism systematically. Hegel’s critique was based on the understanding that every thought was just one stage in the unfolding of the Absolute Idea; he developed the art of uncovering the internal contradictions within an argument which would lead it, by its own logic, to an opposite position. Hegel saw human history as expressing successive stages in the development of the Idea. Every truth is for Hegel, then, a relative truth, since it expresses one stage in the unfolding of history.

<The Young Hegelians called themselves “Critics”, and Marx ridiculed their criticism in The Holy Family, or Critique of Critical Criticism.

<One of the Young Hegelians, Ludwig Feuerbach developed a new approach to criticism which he turned against Hegel. Feuerbach took statements of Hegel and interchanged the subject and object, showing that the sentence made more sense this way. For example, whereas Christianity asserted that the family was an image of the Holy Family, Feuerbach asserted that the Holy Family was an imaginary image of the Earthly family. (See Essence of Christianity.) In his early work, such as Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Marx uses Feuerbach’s method

<But Marx soon discovered the limitations of Feuerbach’s criticism as a one-sided contemplative materialism.

<Thus, Marx restored a valuable element of Hegel’s critique, in Hegel’s conception of ideas and theories expressing interests in “a particular form of society”. Social relations underlie ideology and provide the key to understanding ideology, but at the same time, ideology provide the clearest possible window into social relations.

<Thus, Marx entitled his magnum opus, Capital: Critique of Political Economy, and in Capital Marx’s aim is to understand the nature of bourgeois society by critique of its expression in the theoretical formulations of the political economists.

"Critique" in its full context is not simple criticism in the colloquial sense.

>>2739199
nice try they are just going to wait 10 replies and say it again lol

correction only works if your opponent isnt knowingly wrong on purpose to confuse people

Fourier (1808) called political economists "charlatans", while Saint-Simon praised them (1817). Owen (1813) is ambivalent, but still retains the Labour Theory of Value, and the Ricardian distinction of vaue from wealth, up til his final texts, as in 1848. Saint-Simon also discusses the relationship between politics and political economy in his 8th "Letter to an American" (1817). He writes:
<political economy is the true and sole foundation of politics
This is equally according to Montchretien (1615). From this, he lists consequent conclusions, such that, since only workers are productive, they should be in charge of government and industry, and if this is the case, there will be no wars, since war is damaging to industry, and industry is progressive of moral development. So then, Saint-Simon appears to justify socialism on the very basis of political economy, not in spite of it. This was equally true of the "Ricardian (Smithian) Socialists" (1816-32) who appealed to the working class by using the Labour Theory of Value to demonstrate legitimacy (Engels also claims in his review of Zur Kritik, that the German proletarian parties were speaeheaded by the literature of political economy). Proudhon also concludes on this point (1847), in seeing that the resolutions to economic "contradiction" is by asserting non-contradiction in its place, as in The Law of Exchanges (A=A), such that the basis of society (mutuality) is the human essence (i.e. liberty, or equality), and so as he furthermore exposits, revolution can only return us to a more primitive state (this eschatology is of course christian in origin). Proudhon in 1848 called Smith one of his "masters". The equivalence of exchange was previously theorised by Owen and Warren, and applied in Utopian Socialism, and explicitly adopted by Marx via "labour certificates". Here, we have the pre-Marxist attitude toward political economy, where we can basically say that Adam Smith might be the principle theorist of modern socialism.

Before Marx's "Zur Kritik" (1859) or "Das Kapital" (1867) was Engels' "Outlines of A Critique of Political Economy" (1843), which Marx develops from in his 1844 Manuscripts, but in reference to this, he also makes exception to Adam Smith (Third Manuscript, Sct. 1) in seeing Smith's "enlightened" political economy, and as being equally in the spirit of Luther, by locating wealth in Man, as his subjective essence (i.e. labour and property) rather than in nature alone. From this basis, Marx develops the concept of Man's social antagonisms, as that being a conflict of labour against itself by different forms. In Sct. 2, Marx defines the contradiction of private property in its developed state as being the precise difference between capital and labour (which Engels in his Critique, also sees; private property as the contradictory basis for which all further contradiction manifests from).

If we may speak of Engels' Critique, we may simplify many points: (i) Liberal economics conserves much of  mercantilism in its theory and practice, (ii) Wealth cannot be measured nationally, e.g. England is both rich and poor (iii) Buyer and Seller exist in antagonism, (iv) The bourgeois abolition of the family, (v) Use-Value and Exchange-Value antagonise each other, (vi) Land is divided between its demand and intensity of yield, (vii) Labour and Capital are artificially separated by different modes of property which mark the distinction, (viii) the form and content of labour is differentiated between its mode in wages, and what remains in capital, (ix) Competition leads to monopoly and vice-versa, (x) Value cannot be reliably measured, since it is always changing with supply and demand, (xi) "People starve from sheer abundance", (xii) Property is set against itself by competition, which breeds monopoly, and so private property abolishes itself by manifesting inequality.

Much of this is later transposed into the Manifesto (1848). Marx of course adds to this in his own way in the 1844 Manuscripts, but only properly returns to Political Economy in 1857, with the Grundrisse; the "groundwork" for his Critique of Political Economy. It has its initial adaptation in his Zur Kritik (1859), while at the same time, Marx is writing the manuscripts for later publishing in the Capital tetraology (he mostly completes these by 1865, from thence writing Capital Vol. 1 in 1867, yet never being able to publish the rest. Capital Vol. 2 was published posthomously in 1885, and Capital Vol. 3 was published in 1894, with Kautsky publishing Theories of Surplus Value around 1910).

On the matter of Marx's "Critique" itself, it is massivsely misunderstood. Marx makes comment here on his previous Critique of Hegel's notion of jurisprudence:
<My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm
Engels applies the same application in his review:
<The purpose of a work like the one under review […] is from the beginning designed to give a systematic résumé of the whole complex of political economy and a coherent elaboration of the laws governing bourgeois production and bourgeois exchange. This elaboration is at the same time a comprehensive critique of economic literature, for economists are nothing but interpreters of and apologists for these laws. Hardly any attempt has been made since Hegel’s death to set forth any branch of science in its specific inner coherence […] The working out of the [dialectical] method which underlies Marx’s critique of political economy is, we think, a result hardly less significant than the basic materialist conception Even after the determination of the method, the critique of economics could still be arranged in two ways — historically or logically. […] The logical method of approach was therefore the only suitable one […] economics is not concerned with things but with relations between persons, and in the final analysis between classes […] Although a few economists had an inkling of this connection in isolated instances, Marx was the first to reveal its significance for the entire economy thus making the most difficult problems so simple and clear that even bourgeois economists will now be able to grasp them.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/appx2.htm
From both accounts therefore, Marx's "Critique" appears to simply be grounding political economy in primary causes, which comprises the "science" of the work, in identical fashion as Marx seeking to describe the "laws of motion" of Capital, later on. The method of inquiry is theoretical, or logical, and so attempts to capture the world of political economy into a coherent sequence of immanent contradiction, and unity by higher conception (which has inner necessity by logical development). So then, the "critique" is not some sort of denial of political economy, but is an attempt to totalise it as a "science".

>>2741135
Yes, such are the terms of the "Paradox of Tolerance".

>>2739199
Yes, yes but Marx still quite
literally criticized political economy as a sham, didn't he? He talks about its complete decline after Ricardo
>>2741135
Meds

>>2742998
>he literally criticized political economy as a sham, didn't he?
Did he? You sound unsure.
>He talks about its complete decline after Ricardo
Yes, he discusses the timine here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm
The period of "classical political economy" (1662-1820) is superseded by a period of "vulgar political economy", ended by the repeal of the corn laws (1820-46), and which then moves to "syncretism", such as in Mill (1848), concurrent with continental revolution. The change in circumstances, Marx explains, is due to the initial contest for power by the bourgeoisie, and finally, their political ascendancy, which betrays the previous discourse by a new-found loyalty to capital. Marx hardly ever criticises classical political economy, because of course, that's where most of his ideas come from. The most he speaks on it is here:
<Classical Political Economy nearly touches the true relation of things, without, however, consciously formulating it. This it cannot, so long as it sticks in its bourgeois skin.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch19.htm
This is only in reference to substituting "labour" for "labour-power". But where does the theory of labour power come from to begin with? We may read:
<One of the oldest economists and most original philosophers of England — Thomas Hobbes — has already, in his Leviathan, instinctively hit upon this point overlooked by all his successors. He says: “the value or worth of a man is, as in all other things, his price: that is so much as would be given for the use of his power.” Proceeding from this basis, we shall be able to determine the value of labour as that of all other commodities.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch02.htm
So then, the classical economists merely "overlook" Hobbes (1651), but as yet, retain his meaning, elsewise it could not be so said by Marx and Engels, that Adam Smith (1776) discovered the source of surplus value:
<Thus even Adam Smith knew “the source of the surplus-value of the capitalist,” and furthermore also of that of the landlord. Marx acknowledged this as early as 1861
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch00.htm#1885
Engels also spares us the time of Marx's Chapter on Smith in Theories of Surplus Value (1863) by speaking on Marx's only real difference from Smith on this topic:
<Marx’s surplus-value, on the contrary, represents the general form of the sum of values appropriated [as opposed to their particular forms; i.e. profit, rent, etc.]
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch00.htm#1885
So in each case, the real difference is really very slight, which shouldn't be surprising, since Marx himself admitted to sit on the shoulders of giants.

The first labour law in England was the "Ordinance of Labourers" (1349), which compelled all people below 60 to work, it set a maximum wage of £2/y and a net work day of around 10 hours. This was then strengthened by "The Statute of Labourers" (1351) which had its means to regulate wages from the increasing real wages seen in the market, due to the demand for labour, incurred by the plague. Thus, the state saw to arrest the labour market by setting the price of labour directly, as well as increasing the supply of labour by compulsion. Despite this, wages tended to increase throughout the 14th century, and had doubled by the beginning of the 15th.

By this time, the guilds had largely managed urban affairs, where trades and craft where based, with members having mutual protections, as opposed to the population of the country, whose agricultural labour was based in serfdom or slavery. We can read guild law codes, such as the Carta Di Bologna (1264) or Les Règlements de Londres pour les Maçons (1356), which set up systems of apprenticeship, fair pay and the like.

We see the overhaul of local guild powers in the "Statute of Artificers" (1562) which sought to regulate wages and movement for the workers in cities, by placing powers over guilds in their admission of apprentices, effectively de-skilling labour, while at once limiting wages, even imprisoning those employers who agreed to pay workers more than what was permitted. Some base this shift in the idea that by this time, labour had greater imperative in the country than the towns, by a focus on agricultural exports than local crafts, as per the mercantilist swoon of early capitalism, eventually culminating in the East India Company (1600 CE).

If we track this from the tendency of primitive accumulation to dispossess peasant farmers by landed gentry, then we see how a focus on the country brings the original momentum for capital, while the town or city becomes central with later industrialisation in the 18th and 19th century, by which time, the bourgeoisie (burghers; city-dwellers) ascend in political prominance, while the country and village declines. At once however, the country becomes depopulated of labourers as they centralise into cities, while the aristocracy dwells in the greenery. Marx discusses this in the union Britain makes with Ireland (1801), that the British lords expel the Irish country into English cities, as they appropriate the land for themselves. We can see in romantic poetry like William Blake's Jerusalem, an appraisal of the "green and pleasant land" of England, against "Satanic Mills".

In reading the mercantilists, I stumbled upon Josiah Child's discussions on the rate of interest (1668):
<the Low Interest in Holland, proceeds from their abundance of money
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A32837.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext
This interested me because of what Smith wrote, that the rate of profit cannot be uniformly measured, but must proceed from the rate of interest, which by its market rate, tracks spending, which Smith claims has been increasing in England since Henry VIII (Holland having an abundance of money in circulation and having low interest rates would then be concurrent). In looking for more material, I then found Marx discussing Child:
<During the entire 18th century there is the cry, with Holland referred to as an example, for a compulsory reduction of the rate of interest (and legislation acts accordingly), in order to subordinate interest-bearing capital to commercial and industrial capital, instead of the reverse. The main spokesman for this movement is Sir Josiah Child, the father of ordinary English private banking.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch36.htm
This is quite right, as we may read directly (1668):
<It being the necessary and never-failing consequence of a high Interest all the World over, to enrich a very few, and impoverish all the rest of the Nation
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A32837.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext
Child further speaks on the fact that the Dutch owe their riches to the purposeful reduction of the rate of interest in borrowing money. Marx quotes an obscure passage from an unknown source which aligns with previous comments from Child, that the lowering of interest (that is, of making borrowing money easier) often acts as a cause, not an effect, of wealth, by increasing commerce. Marx then sees this transition of banking from the point of usury to productive investment as the pivot by which industrial capital gets a stronghold, especially through central banking (central banking as an institution beginning in Sweden, 1668, later being adapted by the English in 1694):
<This violent battle against usury, this demand for the subordination of interest-bearing capital to industrial capital, is but the herald of the organic creations that establish these prerequisites of capitalist production in the modern banking system, which on the one hand robs usurer's capital of its monopoly by concentrating all idle money reserves and throwing them on the money market, and on the other hand limits the monopoly of the precious metal itself by creating credit-money.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch36.htm

Child himself also proposed a "poor relief" program in 1670:
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A32836.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext
Which amounts to an agenda to achieve full employment (this program was also on the mind of Montchretien in 1615), to resist a tendency of crime or vagrancy in the lower classes. He looks at other places, such as Holland and Paris as examples of this working. The Tudors from the period of 1530 to 1601 had previously attempted to manage the newly-created paupery spawned from capitalist conditions, initiated under Henry VII (1485-1509), which had unleashed masses of unemployed persons, compelled to work for wages. The creation of "poor laws" then necessitates the existence of a mass of poor people, which had not existed before this period in English history. Laws which criminalised begging also emerged from 1494 onwards. Along with this basic question of how to facilitate the non-working poor where also more "progressive" elements, such as in John Bellers' work (1695):
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A27366.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext
Which can be seen to precede Robert Owen's vision.

I was listening to this extremely weak criticism against Josiah Child written by Murray Rothbard:
https://mises.org/podcasts/audio-mises-daily/sir-josiah-child-false-friend-freedom
Which is continuous of his primary arguments in "The History of Economic Thought"; that the detestment of usury from the time of the Ancients is a false consciousness, since according to the Austrian Theory (Since the time of Bawerk in 1884, since I recall Menger making a contrary argument to this), usury is justified under the pretence of time-preference - which then later becomes standardised as the justification for capitalist profit by people like Hoppe. Aristotle calls usury "unnatural", Aquinas calls it a "double payment" and Child sees it as artificially uncompetitive. Of course, the Bank of England is a perfect invention after this dispute, since it allows credit to be (theoretically) issued in the national interest, rather than the private interest of bankers, which Rothbard presumes to be superior, or at least primary, to collective claims. Of course (which then also justifies loan sharking under the same pretext). A free market of banking has never been sufficiently advanced as a working theory anyway, so we can only speculate as to what Rothbard ultimately desires. Even a neo-mercantilist like Yarvin has an unfounded disdain for regulating interest rates. I guess he is not as "post" libertarian as he wants to be…

Chapter 21 of John Bates Clark's "Distribution of Wealth" (1899) concerns "The Theory of Economic Causation", which chiefly discusses the "exploitation" of labour, but we may read preliminary comments in Chapter 12: "Labor, like commodities, is subject to a law of marginal appraisal. The rate that the market puts on the final unit of the supply of each of them, it puts on the entire supply. As the last unit of consumers' goods is a price-making one, so the last unit of labor is the one that fixes wages."

To Clark, following from the theory of "final utility" by Von Thünen (1823), wages receive a diminishing return by incriment of employment, meaning that the more people who are employed by a (fixed) quantity of capital, the less that each will recieve by additional units of labour. This is a macroeconomic argument which advances from Jevons' (1871) prior argument of the marginal product of labour equating with wages; i.e. the longer one works, the less he receives per unit of labour, which is the same as Marx's argument regarding the length of the working day. Equally, the marginal product of labour is counterbalanced by its total product, demonstrating the deficit between wages and profits.

Like Jevons, Clark places the rate of wages at (M0; or in this case, C), which is the threshold of negative marginal returns, fixing the value of labour. To Clark then, wages are fixed at the level of subsistence, based on the optimal rate of employment per capital, which diminishes the marginal product of labour down to its basic rate of return.

He speaks of the first incriments of labour in production as being more productive than the next, seemingly proving a state of exploitation between (L¹) and (L²). He writes that (L¹) is "over-saturated" with capital, which raises its price, by a transfer of capital's product into labour, while what is given by additional labour (L²) is a lesser product, but, only by a diminished share in capital. Thus, Clark sees that the source of productivity is not in labour, but in capital, which enhances labour. He draws up a basic sum to demonstrate the point: let (C) be Capital and (L) be Labour. A marginal product is then made by a sum of (C+L), but with each addition of (L), the more that (C) must be shared among (L).

Thus, he writes: (C+2L)/2. So then, Clark bases the diminishing marginal product by additional labour on the increasing share of capital amongst labourers, which divides capital further, until at M0, only the product of labour remains. If we follow the sum, we see that L retains its constant magnitude, while C declines with each addition of L (e.g. C/Lª) - this reverses the Marxian argument, which sees the declining value of commodities due to a declining content of variable capital compared to constant capital (e.g. v/cª). This he adds, expresses the standard of wages, proving that the rate of wages is determined by marginal productivity and employment, not the total product of labour, which as previously discussed, is inverse to its margin.

This then implies that the rate of wages is composite to the transfer of capital into labour, making higher wages a form of exploitation against capital, since it combines its final product with itself. What is at least theoretically important in this observation is the acknowledgement that profits are entirely relative to wages, and thus inversely proportional as revenues. Jevons also sees this by highlighting higher wages as shortening the working day, thus lowering the total product of labour.

On profit in particular, Clark takes a mercantilist view that equilibrium of supply and demand annihilates profits (Ch. 12), and so the entrepeneur can only pay out wages and interest in production, while net profits can only be made by selling products higher than what they cost. This view then dispells any notion of surplus labour, yet Clark does speak of a natural surplus of consumption compared to production in Chapter 24, showing a difference between "effective utility" and "absolute (utility)" in production, measured by inputs and outputs (what can be compared to MP and TP).

In the same chapter, he also properly invokes cost as disutility, but fails in equating the value of cost to utility, since even Jevons speaks of the validity of Smith's "paradox of value". Similarly, Clark sees that bread and butter are more important things than diamonds, yet attempts to equate them by "effective utility" in cost, thus invoking a labour theory of value of sorts (where to Jevons, labour is measured by disutility, or subjective deficit). This is what he writes: "Price is, then, an indication of the social cost of acquisition of different commodities." In Chapter 25, Clark further writes that in equilibrium, commodities sell at their cost of production.

The product must be greater, however, since otherwise one could not make things greater by their usefulness, but only equal to suffering. So then, the difference between (effective) utility and (absolute) utility must represent profitability (where to Marx, surplus value is also a result of surplus utility; e.g. labour-power's use-value extends beyond its exchange-value). If we gladly measure effective utility against absolute utility then, we see that as absolute utility increases, effective utility must decrease, making production cheaper as prices become lower by increased efficiency. The only issue is the simultaneous cheapening of labour, which makes production inefficient, by raising real prices, and so shrinking markets. This then introduces a dilemma for the utilitarian; where as Jevons has precedence, they must promote the propensity of public consumption over the private interests of profiteers and monopolists, whose ends are based in the inefficiency of production, which in this view, is simply an aspect of consumption.

The issue with Clark's view then appears to be that he fails to perceive the Smithian insight that the "net profit" of the entrepeneur in sale can be achieved at equilibrium, by selling the surplus product at its value, rather than above its value; i.e. Clark supposes the natural value of production to be (c+v), not (c+v+s). Clark presumes (s) to only be a result of disequilibrium, which is more in line with the Austrian school than Jevons. Once it is accepted that this is the case, then we can also see how wages are undervalued by the deficit between efficient utility and absolute utility, and thus, the difference between the marginal and total product, which separates at the threshold of diminishing returns for labour. To conclude, we may read Clark's comments in Chapter 1: "The indictment that hangs over society is that of "exploiting labor." "Workmen" it is said, "are regularly robbed of what they produce. This is done within the forms of law, and by the natural working of competition." If this charge were proved, every right-minded man should become a socialist; and his zeal in transforming the industrial system would then measure and express his sense of justice."

If supply and demand aint real how come the price of oil is increasing after Iran war?

>people are now ignoring adam smith anon
a shame

>>2752815
>If supply and demand aint real how come the price of oil is increasing after Iran war?
it's real, if the guy in the OP video weren't vulgarizing the subject matter, he would elaborate on the way a commodity's supply can be made artificially expensive through various means. It is less that supply and demand are a "scam" and more that price is manipulable through the monetary system, especially in a place like the USA
>>2752914
I read the thread but don't always have things to add.

>>2752914
He won then

>>2752950
Why do they have to manipulate anything? Cant they just declare that a commodity x now costs y dollas?

>>2753015
As I discuss here: >>2726944
Effective supply can be artificially constricted, but only where there is a lack of sufficient competition, since a state of "perfect competition" lowers prices down to the cost of production, by raising effective supply to meet demand. What can limit competition can be regulations like intellectual property which create monopolies of a particular brand for goods and services. Distributors even base their operations on certain contracts that control for the products they deal with. For example, brand deals like Coke or Pepsi limit their usage in different businesses. Coke is partnered with McDonalds while Pepsi is partnered with KFC. In a theoretically "free" market, Coke would not have Intellectual Property rights over their recipe, and so KFC could partner with a Coke clone, effecting competition to the ends of cheaper prices. A big component of this is in technology and engineering, which are patented to stop competition from effecting an alternative. Certain technologies also make operating systems exclusive, by software and hardware monopoly, like Apple. Intellectual Property itself is an 18th century legal fiction (e.g. "The Statute of Anne", 1710), although it has a certain precedence in the 1611 "authorised" KJV, which limited distribution based on "crown copyright" publishers and printers; its currently illegal to copy and sell the KJV by an unauthorised publisher in the UK.

So, "manipulation" is a way that merchants constrict the market to gain a profit in the mercantile sense, rather than the "liberal" sense of perfect competition. Since the early 20th century, it has been a Keynesian truism that the market effectively operates at imperfect competition, which is why meeting effective supply by raising effective demand is universally adopted. Some ctitics say that deregulating protections for capital will balance markets more effectively, creating bipartisan efforts on the left and right to abolish IP, for example. If there were no patents, for example, then certain reciprocal trade deals which compromise technological development wouldn't have to occur. But this is the Marxist truth of the situation, that profits are at odds with productivity, so capitalists will prefer to regress development than to advance it beyond a threshold, which makes prices so low that profit is erased. Of course, we see a new leftist support for patent protections over artistic works, seeing the freedom of information as endangering to public morality.

Here, I have constructed two english translations for very important works of 17th century French political economy. First is Antoine Montchretien's "Treatise of Political Economy" (1615), from whence the neologism of "political economy" arises. The second translation is Boisguilbert's "Detail of France" (1695); the expanded second edition of 1707, which includes other works, including his "Factum" (1706) and "Dissertation" (1707). This work is also where Marx sees classical political economy begin in France, historically developing from the earlier work of William Petty (1662).

On a larger point of 17th century political economy, I will make general comment regarding the turn to free trade, from the writings of William Potter (1651), to Josiah Child (1668) and John Law (1705), who all advocated for the lowering of interest to expand the supply of money. Boisguilbert is equally seen as advancing the laissez-faire tradition, contrary to thinkers of the early 17th century like Montchretien, who guards trade in the typical mercantilist fashion, as a weapon to use against foreigners, rather than a source of mutual benefit - such as we see develop in the second half of the 18th century, particularly with Adam Smith (1776). So then, these texts are important in showing the difference between the attitudes of the century, earlier and later.

>>2752914
its not relevant at all. im glad people are ignoring him i only wish he would fuck off and stay gone

>>2753442
>relevance
The thread is about political economy, sir.
Please don't browse places you find personally uninteresting, rather than impressing your flippant opinions upon the subject matter. If you wish to contribute to discussion, however, I certainly expect less emotional disturbance than what is currently given, especially concerning a parasocial relationship. Now that this has been clarified, try to stay on topic. ☺️

For any lingering dissatisfaction, I suggest therapy, or at least a healthy sense of prioritisation.

>>2753478
>The thread is about political economy, sir.
dont post about alchemy in the chemistry thread

>>2753549
Do you have anything to contribute?

>>2753553
this site is anon, if i did or did not you would not know either way

>>2753558
So, no.
Please remain relevant to the thread, thank you.

I have translated 3 Latin texts which concern the topic of money, namely "A Letter on Credit Sales and Usury", by Thomas Aquinas (1262), "De Usuris", by Giles of Lessinus (1278) and "The Method of Minting Coins", by Nicolaus Copernicus (1526). The first is very interesting in light of Aquinas' later writings on usury (t. "Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.77-78", 1274 CE), but also where it concerns contemporary theories of interest, which if we read Irving Fisher (1912-30), he attributes the rate of interest to "time-preference" or "impatience" (what he credits Bohm-Bawerk as seeing in the "undervaluation" of future goods). Aquinas similarly bases interest in the sale of "time" itself, but as an act which he considers as usurious, or incurring an unjust price to loans by creditors. In the Summa, he elaborates that what is sold by interest is a "double payment" for the use of something, and thus, what is sold above value is insubstantial (the letter helps us connect the insubstantial cause to temporality). De Usuris (1278) is said to be the earliest economic treatise on a particular topic (usury), spanning 21 chapters, and what of course, is deemed immoral. Giles similarly connects the surplus of usury to time in chapter 4, showing a continuous conception. In Copernicus' work, we see an early example of both Gresham's Law of monetary debasement, and a quantity theory of money also, which links monetary supply to rates of circulation and productivity. In the end, he sees that the state should fix the value of coin at 20:1 per pound of silver, inflating the contemporary rate of 12:1, but adding that custom will abide by this adjustment, which he also concludes, is an ancient practice. Another manuscript of this century, John Hales' "Discourse" (1551) discusses the value of money - we see later of course, the enthusiasm of commerce into the mid-17th century, following William Potter (1650), for credit money to rapidly circulate at the discount of "usurious" bankers. Aiding this plea comes the creation of central banks (initially theorised by Potter's "land bank" and Child in 1668, who wanted to pledge land as a security for public credit).

>>2753478
>The thread is about political economy
This thread is actually about pseuds jerking off to paragraphs on books and a nitpicking that rivals Jordan Peterson

>>2753596
criticizing someone for inane ramblings is very relevant to the thread, since it has been the main topic ever since he took over by force.

>>2753011
sustained willpower of ignorance is not winning. opponents giving up because you are incapable of learning or understanding is not winning.

>>2753599
Are you translating texts that were previously untranslatedi nto english, or are these just your own personal efforts at translating something for the sake of translating it? did you use AI or learn the language first?

>>2753549
>dont post about alchemy in the chemistry thread
the history of chemistry and the pseudoscience it emerged from from is part of understanding chemistry. also that today's scientific paradigms might be tomorrow's pseudoscience.

>>2753599
interest is just hedging against inflation. the natural rate of interest is the rate of inflation. if you give a guy 8 bucks at 0%, and he gives you 8 bucks back a week later, you lost money, that's cuck behavior. the money literally inflated a little bit in that 1 week. you gotta find out how many cents it inflated and charge him that interest

>>2753232
How does this explain oil getting expensive?

>>2753623
If you don't like citations from the work of political economy, don't enter the thread on political economy. 🤷‍♂️
>>2753749
You are the only person inanely rambling.
Please desist and be relevant. Thank you.

>>2754156
These texts were previously untranslated for public access.
I'm also currently transcribing and translating political texts, such as "Vox Populi, Vox Dei" (1707) and Quesnay's "Despotisme De La China" (1767), since Vincent de Gournay supposedly traces back his popularisation of the term "laissez-faire" from Quesnay's writings on China, with "laissez-faire" being a translation of "Wu-Wei" (the taoist principle of active passivity). I noticed in reading Rousseau's "Discourse on Political Economy" (1755) that he often praises China (particularly for their sales tax), so it must have been a contemporary fascination of the French Enlightenment to look eastwards. In Rousseau's "Social Contract" (1762) he also defines a Republic as being able to consist of a monarchy, so I wonder if Quesnay also justifies the "despotism" of China in a similar manner (which I suppose he will, given his first "maxim", concerning the "unity of authority"). Don't forget also that Lao Tzu promoted state dictatorship; but under the rule of a wise emporer, the people are imagined to rule themselves (this is the same idea which Plato has in his text "statesman", which introduces the "forms" of government we see in ancient political science, from Aristotle, to the "anacyclosis" of Polybius). I'm using google translate to convert them into english, and OCR to extract some texts from PDFs.

>>2754481
> "laissez-faire" being a translation of "Wu-Wei" (the taoist principle of active passivity)
wow, lol
> it must have been a contemporary fascination of the French Enlightenment to look eastwards.
the more things change the more they stay the same, eh?
>I'm using google translate to convert them into english, and OCR to extract some texts from PDFs.
are you worried about things being lost in translation? I have read many translators' prefaces in books, and they can get very touchy about this stuff.

>>2754508
I'm an autodidact, not a scholar, so i bear no ultimate responsibility, especially if I'm the one primarily affected by these readings. In any case, something is better than nothing.
>>2754354
Prices are determined by effective supply and demand (Adam Smith uses the term "effectual" to distinguish existing goods from goods which are on the market, so you can have an existing supply which is ineffective, the same way ineffective demand is desire without available money). So, oil prices are higher because there is less effective supply, or available oil on the market, as it was initially deduced. Supply and demand is a law; even Marx agrees, which is why its criticism is oblivious. But lets say that its all made-up; why cant I sell a chocolate bar for £1,000,000 and become rich? We see then, that in markets, competition decides.
>>2754159
Adam Smith writes that the natural rate of interest is related to market activity, where he sees that the rate of profit and wages is also concurrent with it:
<According, therefore, as the usual market rate of interest varies in any country, we may be assured that the ordinary profits of stock must vary with it, must sink as it sinks, and rise as it rises. The progress of interest, therefore, may lead us to form some notion of the progress of profit […] Since the time of Henry VIII the wealth and revenue of the country have been continually advancing, and, in the course of their progress, their pace seems rather to have been gradually accelerated than retarded. They seem not only to have been going on, but to have been going on faster and faster. The wages of labour have been continually increasing during the same period, and in the greater part of the different branches of trade and manufactures the profits of stock have been diminishing. […] the diminution of profit is the natural effect of [.] prosperity […] As riches, improvement, and population have increased, interest has declined
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch09.htm
He compares England against other nations, such as Holland, Scotland and France, seeing that the difference in the market rate tracks the prosperity of the country (the same as Josiah Child saw in Holland, that its rate of interest was lower, and therefore it had more money - but not so much that money was produced beyond its real product). So then, national rates of interest we can relate to economic activity in general. If we compare international rates of interest, we see this:
https://www.voronoiapp.com/economy/Real-Interest-Rates-by-Country-in-2025-4920
Which generally tracks real interest rates from poorest to richest countries, but its not an exact science.

As a macroeconimic addendum, we can see Smith base the rate of interest and profit with rates of production, where he attributes lower rates of profit due to higher investment in capital (which theoretically raise the demand for labour). We can then formulate a sum between real capital raising real production, causing a decline in the rate of interest, expanding the money supply. He thus implies that this extra money which circulates enters into the new wages of labour (the cycle he portrays is the same as Marx's; that the demand for labour raises wages, the rise of wages produces more labour, and more labour reduces wages). He thus places the agency of interest (saving/spending) in capital investment (what Marx would characterise as a superior form of saving, where money multiplies itself in an active hoard; M-M'). So then, capital investment is a form of saving, which allows a greater threshold of borrowing, to circulate the real product. As capital intensifies, interest is lowered and money multiplies. We can then understand interest in these Smithian terms, between what is saved by capital and spent by labour.

This can be related to the later Austrian notion of temporal valuation in production from the time of Menger (1871), that capitalisation means investing money into the production of future goods (as opposed to immediate consumption). Thus, all capitalist production is a means of converting present value into future value, which has the same prospectivity as saving, while consumption is a means of spending. So then, in a commonsense manner, wherever money is spent, it cannot be saved so as to be productive. So then, capital investment is a form of saving, which allows for greater spending, as a corresponding effect. If interest balances spending and saving, then more saving requires equal spending, otherwise there will be recession, and this will cause a "paradox of thrift". If we take time-preference as a cause of interest rates, then we see that investment represents a valuation in future goods, while spending is the valuation of present goods, which are balanced, while if spending outpaces production, interest rates will rise due to "bad credit" in the population, as a means to manage money supply.

The Keynesian theory of liquidity-preference is an aspect of time-preference, which assesses the dynamics of saving and spending according to demand for cash at the intersection of the rate of interest. When the rate of interest is high, it gives incentive for saving, but when it is low, the demand for money increases, because it is cheaper. Your remark that "the natural rate of interest is the rate of inflation" is close to this, except that the causation is unstated. To Keynes, the rate of inflation is determined by the rate of interest, which can be controlled by the central bank from the supply of money. Keynes also relates investment to interest, seeing that the "marginal efficiency of capital" (MEC) can be pushed to the rate of interest, which if we follow "Keynes' Law" of the market, leads with demand, which causes an increase in supply. Overstepping this bound can then lead to oversupply, and so Keynes sees the rate of interest (which regulates money supply) as the limit of economic activity - the same as Smith and Child, but by alternative explanations. The rate of interest then, according to many, is a macroeconomic centrality.

>>2754481
>These texts were previously untranslated for public access.
i wonder why? thanks for being chatgpt no one else could have done it!

>>2754640
Many important texts are currently unavailable or untranslated, such as William Potter's "Key of Wealth" (1650), Von Thünen's "Isolated State" (1826) and Gossen's "Laws of Human Relations" (1854). Von Thünen elaborated a marginal theory of "natural wages" (continued into Clark, 1899 - who I have reviewed). Clark contends that "exploitation" exists in Von Thünen's theory, so I would have liked to read it directly, except that it is all in German. Gossen is also credited as the founder of marginal utility theory by Jevons, yet its hard enough to even find the German copy of his work. Free PDF websites are being completely scrubbed from the internet, forcing people to have to buy books rather than read them for free. We know that they're trying to end the internet archive, and even wikipedia is suffering. Copyright and monopoly is killing the net; even Marxists.org is losing pages due to claims from sources like MECW. I have been searching for a page on Marxists.org of Marx discussing Boisguilbert, but even this seems to be deleted, for whatever reason (and this is important, since Marx is the inventor of the neologism "classical political economy", as cited by Keynes, yet future archivists can only rely on secondary sources, the same way Montchretien's "Treatise" is the neologistic foundation of the entire school of thought, yet is relegated to obscurity - its totally inefficient and corrupt). The digital Library of Alexandria is being looted and set alight piece by piece as bandwidth is increasingly privatised. This is the true contradiction of the age, and one which strikes between quality and quantity. But maybe people just don't give a shit about these intellectual traditions; maybe I'm just an autist. Even so, this should make these fields unregulated, not crippled by restriction. The internet is getting worse; it is no longer an opem market.

>>2754692
>Many important texts are currently unavailable or untranslated
wow are you gonna do those too? how do you manage to have the time to post and also translate? your so cool smith-kun!

do you post these anywhere else or just on leftypol? you should share your hard work with all of humanity. in fact people should pay you for it

>>2754692
>Free PDF websites are being completely scrubbed from the internet, forcing people to have to buy books rather than read them for free
ironic since the capitalists already used those same PDFs to provide training data to their large language models. only they are allowed to use free knowledge, it seems. meanwhile most people neither know nor care. they hit you with the vid related reaction if you even bring it up.

>>2754707
In the last thread, I've shown how many pre-modern class societies have been understood as monopolising knowledge (which itself is in some way an esoteric structure of demand). Hindu brahmin for example, were instructed to torture any labourer to death who would happen to read the holy books (like how the Latin Vulgate monopolised Bible reading in the middle ages, and all translators were called heretics, like John Wycliffe - The Catholic Church of course, being The Beast). I relate this ultimately back to James Frazer's anthropology, where he writes that the original kings of men were also priests, with this division of labour beginning with the downfall of magical communities.
>>2754707
I just post here. It suffices.
In terms of archiving, I already perceive Ragnarok; I cannot revive the dead language of these hieroglyphs. I only strive for a selfish satisfaction, to comprehend a canon; to construct a history of thought which has limited utility. What does bother me however are the Marxist pharisees who believe but do not really know; like followers of LaFargue, to whom Marx replied "I am not a Marxist". What then is this Star of Remphan? If one seeks to know, then know - and know how to know. If Marx was so brilliant, and he read all these figures, then why not follow in the footsteps of the great man? So then, I only grow weary of hypocrisy, not ignorance as such.

Cont. from:
>>2754159
>>2754569

To speak further on the natural rate of interest, we may look at comments made in the 17th century. First is the writings of William Potter, who in his "Humble Proposals" (1651) suggests an increase in the circulation of trade by low-interest currency; presenting a demand-side economics by which he asks to "advance trade, employ the poor, diminish interest, improve public revenues; and prevent the cruelty of creditors, and the injustice of debtors." So then, a greater supply of money corresponds to a lesser rate of interest, but in this case, established by law, not by nature. Next is Josiah Child and his "Brief Observations…" (1668) in which he takes the same position, of seeking to set the rate of interest by law rather than by custom, as he writes directly:
<To illustrate this, let us impartially search our Books, and enquire what the State and condition of this Kingdom was, as to Trade and Riches, before any Law concerning Interest of Money was made. The first whereof that I can find, was Ann 1545, and we shall be Informed that the Trade of England then was Inconsiderable, and the Merchants very mean and few: And that afterwards, viz, Anno. 1635 with ten Years after Interest was brought down to eight per cent there was more Merchants to be found upon the Exchange worth each One thousand Pounds and upwards, then were in the former dayes, viz. before the year 1600 to be found worth One hundred Pounds each.
Thus, Child states very directly that under conditions of the free market, trade moves slower than when it is stimulated into action (since credit is more cautious and self-interested), which he gives by empirical example. For context, the rate of interest was legally adjusted from 10 percent to 8 percent in 1623, and from 8 percent to 6 percent in 1660. Child's desire is for the rate to be lowered to 3 percent, since he sees this as a cause of prosperity by an increase in money for trade. In his "Short Addition" (1670) to the work, he adds that Holland's rate of interest is given by laws, not markets, since they have followed England (this is later repeated by Locke in 1691, who still contends that a natural, or market rate of interest exists alongside its legal rate).

Following from this is the supply-side argument, which puts emphasis on a natual rate. First is William Petty (1690) in "Political Arithmetic", Chapter 6:
<But the natural fall of Interest, is the effect of the increase of Money […] Moreover if rented Lands, and Houses, have increased; and if Trade hath increased also, it is certain that money which payeth those Rents, and driveth on Trade, must have increased also.
To provide a basic theory of this is to say that where there is more money, there is more competition between borrowers, and so the rate of interest reaches its natural or competitive rate, at the rate of available spending, which as Petty adds, is determined by real productivity, measured by trade. We can see the same conclusions made by Locke, in his "Considerations…" (1691):
<Interest […] is low in Holland: but it is so, not as an effect of law, or the politic contrivance of the government, to promote trade: but as the consequence of great plenty of ready money, when their interest first fell.
So then, Locke equally sees the supply of money as the cause of the rate of interest, but with the supply of money being caused by real production, in trade, which is a contrary view to Child's demand-side economics.

Moving into the 18th century, we can read from George Berkley (1735) in the "Querist", Part II, Q.12:
<Whether a national bank would not at once secure our properties, put an end to usury, facilitate commerce, supply the want of coin, and produce ready payments in all parts of the kingdom?
This again links the rate of interest (e.g. usury) to the supply of money, where if there is a greater supply, the rate of interest will be lower. Continuing into Joseph Massie and his "Natural Rate of Interest" (1750), we see that he qualifies a "natural rate", not simply by supply, but by demand (pp. 20-21), seeing how an increase in the supply of money at one time by excessive demand can raise the rate of interest. He says therefore that fluctuations in the rate of interest are determined by rate of demand for money, but at a natural rate, supply meets demand. Thus, the natural rate the supply of money in equilibrium with demand. Following from Locke's argument as to interest being a measure of trade capacity, Massie disputes this (pp. 43-44) by comparing historical prices to a proportionate rate of interest, showing that if prices, money supply and rate of interest were all proportional, then the rate of interest ought to be regressively exponential, but this is not the case. Massie then makes his conclusion (pg. 48), that borrowing is for the ends of profit, and so interest must share in the profits of borrowing. Thus, it is the rate of profit which sets the natural rate of interest. This rate of profit he relates to competition amongst traders, of which Holland has most, then England, and so on. He also adds (pg. 54) that profit may be in line with industriousness, which he defines as a capacity to invest in the future (e.g. Menger, 1871). Capital investment then, he defines as prospectivity.

Repeating my earlier citations on interest, we may return to Smith in light of his predecessors, showing that the man did not fabulate theories out of thin air. To begin then, with The Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 9:
<According, therefore, as the usual market rate of interest varies in any country, we may be assured that the ordinary profits of stock must vary with it, must sink as it sinks, and rise as it rises. The progress of interest, therefore, may lead us to form some notion of the progress of profit […] The wages of labour have been continually increasing during the same period, and in the greater part of the different branches of trade and manufactures the profits of stock have been diminishing
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch09.htm
Here, Smith relates to Massie's point, that interest and profits are interlinked phenomena, which as time goes on and productivity increases, each are lowered. Smith similarly attributes rates of profit and wages (as inverse proportions) to competition. My added perspective of capital counting as a form of saving should also be considered, since this balances the national account between assets and liabilities. Proof enough is in how spending must be regulated by real production.

So then, what are we to conclude? We must first see that there is a contradiction between natural and legal rates of interest. Child does not deny a natural rate, but only sees that it is ineffectual to the ends of trade. Equally, Potter assumes that an increase in currency will increase productivity. Petty and Locke give primacy to the natural rate, which they see deriving from an increase in productivity, and thus the legal rate simply follows the natural rate. Massie agrees, but qualifies this by the rate of profit and competition as the primary cause. In Smith, we see that the rate of interest is basically identical to the rate of profit, which is determined not simply by competition, but the rate of capital investment, with larger capital stocks lowering interest. Here, capital acts as a form of prospectivity, which links to time-preferential theories by a sense of delayed gratification that adds value by futurity. Here, productivity is basically understood as a capacity to invest in capital, with spending being its counteractivity, through a national accounting of assets and liabilities. Keynes adapts this by identifying the threshold of capital investment (MEC) at the rate of interest, limited to liquidity-preference, or the demand for money. Thus, money (circulating capital) is balanced by fixed capital. This then completes the macroeconomic imago mundi.

For a Marxian addition, we can read from Capital Vol. 3:
<Since we have seen that the rate of profit is inversely proportional to the development of capitalist production, it follows that the higher or lower rate of interest in a country is in the same inverse proportion to the degree of industrial development, at least in so far as the difference in the rate of interest actually expresses the difference in the rates of profit […] In any event the average rate of profit is to be regarded as the ultimate determinant of the maximum limit of interest […] the general rate of profit appears as an empirical, given reality in the average rate of interest
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch22.htm
So then, Marx is in agreement; that the rate of interest is regulated by the rate of profit, which is proportional to the investment of fixed capital (i.e. productivity). He does show concern however, that the rate of interest on credit has a pre-capitalist existence, and so cannot be explained merely on the basis of capitalist relations, even if it inhabits a capitalist character. Marx distinguishes between profit and usury more clearly in Chapter 36, where as a precapitalist form of surplus, it is a drain on production by promoting consumption:
<Usurer's capital employs the method of exploitation characteristic of capital yet without the latter's mode of production.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch36.htm
In the same chapter, Marx references Josiah Child, seeing the mid-17th century as pivotal in advancing from usurer's capital to industrial capital. Of course, this is initially performed by legal controls over interest, but later, the market is seen to decide its rate. Marx quotes Gilbart and his History of Banking in this regard:
<In our times, it is the rate of profit which regulates the rate of interest. In those times, it was the rate of interest which regulated the rate of profit.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch36.htm
So then, interest is relative to perspective, but in any case, it is symptomatic of exploitative relationships - the lender and the borrower; the creditor and debtor.

>>2754774
everyone on this board except you is more interested in geopolitics or national politics it seems. I come to this thread for the political economy stuff even though it's mostly you blogging. I like it. I don't have time to do the stuff you do. I have a kid.

>>2755315
I have no complaints against disinterest; its only unfounded prejuduce which is irksome. I exist to bore by scholastic erudition upon this dead science - but as I say, do not dress up Marx as a demystifier, as though the work of political economy is best undone. I only seek to know so that I may escape from my duty to know, and move on to better things. Political Economy is a closed concept; its just about formalising it into shapes and numbers, so that it may be left aside. Politics is the same, of course. All ideas are settled.
>The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
<Ecclesiastes 1:9

Materialist explanation for oil getting expensive?

>>2755328
>unfounded prejuduce
if only that were the case
>All ideas are settled.
in your dreams

>>2755338
High demand, Low supply.
>>2755412
>if only that were the case
A prejudgement is a case where a judgement is made of something before the person who judges it is adequately acquainted with its contents, thus creating an error, either by (i) false presumption, or (ii) false conduct. Thus, in the second case, one can be correct in their judgement, but not by knowledge, and so this correctness is accidental - thus, one can be right, but for the wrong reasons, nullifying this achievement. So then, prejudice is always illegitimate, since it always begins in ignorance, even if it ends in accidental truth. In the case of prejudice around political economy in this thread, it is mostly (i) an errroneous presumption or opinion.
>in your dreams
I fail to quite grasp the meaning of this. By identifying ideas, we already enclose them by identification; so ideas are self-evidently settled; its just that the thinker may falsely grasp it. Thus, progress in conception is not a movement of ideas in themselves, it is a movement from ignorance to knowledge. Thus, when we seek to know, we seek to stop thinking, for it is already complete. Marx himself gives this dissertation in the Communist Manifesto, that politics is the dialectic of class struggle, and the end of class struggle is therefore the end of politics. Thus, once a thing is grasped in its completeness, it may be sufficiently objectified as alienated knowledge (i.e. in the form of a book, which as Ibn Khaldun writes, is the appearance of mind).

>>2755909
yes i think a year of your posts qualifies as adequately acquainted. your claims that political economy is a closed concept and ideas being settled is obviously an ideological projection, a wish, an assertion of unfounded dominance where your arrogance matches your ignorance.

>>2755925
>yes i think a year of your posts qualifies as adequately acquainted.
There is a difference between experience and learning.
>your claims that political economy is a closed concept and ideas being settled is obviously an ideological projection
No, its a description of what ideas are. We learn a topic so that we no longer have to learn it. This is the difference between the attributes of Noesis (understanding) and Eikasia (imagination) in practical terms. We can consume fiction or entertainment endlessly, repeating the same songs on loop, but can we read the same book of non-fiction over and over? Can we tolerate the same lectures? No. So then, we learn so that we may know, and in knowing, we cease learning; ideas are complete, while what is incomplete belongs to sensation, and thus it may be indulged (the imagination being a part of sensation). This is also important in considering government; what belongs to necessity must be understood, while what is frivolous is inconsequential - this is true the constitutional basis of markets, for exampe, which begin by the faculties of the mind. If this cannot be accepted, then there can be no division between fact and fiction, since there is no division between imagining and knowing.
>an assertion of unfounded dominance where your arrogance matches your ignorance.
What am I ignorant of? Please educate me so that I may become a better person.

>>2756087
>There is a difference between experience and learning.
if only you could take your own advice

>>2756460
It's not advice, its a fact.
If people who read my content learned from it, they could not be critical of it, since it is true. Proof of this is in the fact that you cannot identify anything I've written as false, and so it is evidently true. But again, if I am ignorant, please educate me as to where I misunderstand.

Gossen's arithmetic in Chapter 1 of his "Laws of Human Relations" (1854) is plainly unintelligible, since variables are (i) inadequately defined and, (ii) equations are internally contradicted. He communicates well with shapes and words, but not numbers.

We may first analyse his pure algebra, as follows:
P = (p¹ + p² + p³ …)
E = (e¹ + e² + p³ …)
a = (p¹/n¹ + p²/n² + p³/n³ …)
w¹ = (P - E)/a
The issue in this formulation is that in the variable (a) is P, already included, which then subtracts from each, leaving w¹ = (E/n). Does this then suffice? No, since E and n are incommensurate; E is exponential and n is a relative magnitude. So, the equation is unintelligible. This is barring any elaboration as to the description of the variables, which only leads into further confusion:
P = relative duration of pleasure
E = absolute duration of pleasure
n = relative intensity of pleasure
a = duration/intensity
(from this, he also defines two contrary values; W¹ and w¹, which are inversely proportional, while E is proportionate with W¹; W¹ being defined as total pleasure. He also defines w¹ as inversely proportional to a, making n the determinate factor of w¹, as intensity)…
W¹ = Total Pleasure
w¹ = Marginal Pleasure (this assignment is conjectural, since Gossen never actually defines what w¹ is).
Gossen further establishes two opposed equations:
(i) W¹ = (P-E)²/a
(ii) w¹ = (P-E)/a
If we proceed from this we are immediately confused, since if E as total duration is the sum of all intervals, then E = P, since P is exponential of (p). Distinguishing between (e) and (p) is fruitless, since Gossen declines to properly clarify. If both are then identical, then one cannot be subtracted from another, without providing zero. Further, if we relativise (p) to marginal duration, it still makes no sense that it could subtract the total. The reverse could work, however: (E-p), but in this case, its further division by (a) is problematic, since (a) = (P/n), cancelling out the remainder, and so again we return to:
(i) W¹ = (E-n)²
(ii) w¹ = (E-n)
If we define the variables, we come to this:
(i) Total Pleasure = (Total Duration/Relative Intensity)²
(ii) Marginal Pleasure = (Total Duration/Relative Intensity)
This is unintelligible, since intensity is relative to relative duration (p), so if we return to (a) = (P/n), and (n) is inversely proportional to (a) by the value of (n), then isnt (w¹) just (n)? To make this clearer, it is written directly by Gossen that the larger that (n) is, the smaller that (a) is, which in turn makes (w¹) larger. So then, (n) and and (w¹) are directly proportional, but are they identical? If we continue with the conjecture that w¹ measures the margin of pleasure and marginality is defined by intensity (relative to duration), then they appear identical (since if n is relative to p, it must diminish at the rate of P, which is equivalent to E). We see this displayed in Table 1.2, where w¹ declines as E and W¹ increase. The only great confusion in the table is where the value of w¹ is given as 10 where E and W¹ = 0. This is pure nonsense and essentially dispells w¹ as marginal utility, so we must remove the variable of w¹ entirely.

If we then return to (a) = (pª/nª…), we have a sequence of values, between duration and intensity (the same measurements which Marx and Jevons attribute to labour). (a) then represents the series itself, which can be measured by the intervals (p) and intensity (n). This then displays a diminishing value of (n) with any increase of (p), e.g. (a) = (p⁶⁰/n³⁰). If we view (p) as additional of a sequence, then (a) must have its limit at one or below; e.g. (p³⁰/n³⁰). The value of (a) can never reach zero, so this cannot be the proper equation to encapsulate the investigation, since by addition of (p) we have increasing value, not a diminishing value, unless we reverse the variables: (a) = (n/p), which then seems to solve the problem, since if (p) increases, (n) must diminish in value if its magnitude is constant.

Thankfully, Gossen provides (E), which is the total duration of a sequence, and of any activity, it must have its temporal limits. In Table 1.2 we again see that where E is at its maximum value, W¹ is at its maximum value, while w¹ is at 0. Since we have lost w¹, we may continue with (a); where if (a) = 1>, E terminates (despite its fractional values still being positive integers). Some part of Gossen's earlier writing attests to this, where he writes that in a state of equilibrium, there is no pleasure received, and if we define equilibrium as self-identity, then the value of 1 may persist, if pleasure is added by multiplication rather than addition. So then, we have resolved some portion of Gossen's writing, that (a) is the sum of marginal utility (see: Marx and Jevons), which as a relative magnitude, regulates absolute values, such as total duration (E) and total pleasure (W¹).

Looking further, Gossen sees that intensity (n) may be augmented by the variable utility of another object (thus, he resolves pleasure, simply as a factor of differentiation, which is a notable concept). Here, he adds that variable consumption raises the value of (n) by an addition of (p). Thus, pleasure is augmented by modal consumption, which extends (E) by an addition of (p) relative to (n). An issue in this assessment is that Gossen is too abstract, by not giving context to the mode of consumption (and its internal limitations), thus theoretically extending (E) ad infinitum. He does address this in later chapters, but his scattered style does not lend itself well to comprehension.

So then, to sum up:
(p) must be relativised to (n), which is sequenced by (a). This allows (E) to express absolute magnitude without inference, and (W¹) can also be proportioned to (E). (a) must be multiplied to (E), not divided from it, so as to achieve termination by a value of 1 or below. If we were to write up a new sum then, it would be:

[W¹ = E*a]

Reading a commentary on Von Thünen's "Isolated State", Part II (1826), Von Thünen articulates "natural wages" as:
<w = √(ap)
Which is a balance between labour and capital (which Von Thünen describes as accumulated labour), conditioned upon the freedom of land in enterprise, and which demonstrates the socialist principle that where revenues are shared, an optimal portion of subsistence and surplus is arrived at. These "natural wages" are the wages of the hypothetical "frontier" or "isolated state". This differs entirely from the capitalist wage, as defined by Clark, in his "Distribution of Wealth" (1899):
<(C+ªL)/ª
Note that this is only possible where land as a resource is no longer subject to free enterprise, and so labour is centrally commanded rather than cooperated with. The insidiousness of Clark is not in his description of labour receiving less per marginal unit of capital, but that in his work, he calls the capitalist wage a "natural wage", which is contrary to Von Thünen's conception. What we can learn from Von Thünen then, is that land is naturally scarce, which competes its land rents against labour.

Gossen in his "Laws of Human Relations", Chapter 23 also sees land as a primary obstacle to freedom, otherwise suggesting the nationalisation of land:
<The abuse could be corrected in the most desirable way if the property rights to all lands were reserved to the community as a whole, which would then lease any parcel of land for productive purposes to the individual who would pay the highest rent.
He further sees that this private rent ought to have public redistribution. So then, the scarcity of land drives ground rent, paired with competition and capital, which diminishes the net value of labour. Rent then, is an impediment to "natural wages" and social progress, without the justice of making rent equitable to all.

>>2756935
>Proof of this is in the fact that you cannot identify anything I've written as false, and so it is evidently true.
well first, its not that i cannot, its that i wont, because i have before hundreds of times, and you know that. and second absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and you cant prove a negative. nice try tho

>>2757297
>well first, its not that i cannot, its that i wont
🤣 You are pathetic.
Please contribute to the thread, be relevant, or leave.

>>2757309
i dont see how your off topic personal questions relate to the thread

>>2757330
Here's the situation:
I am asking you to cite a source of disagreement you have with me on the subject of political economy, the topic of the thread, the only reason anyone should be here; you refuse, thereby clogging up the thread with irrelevant noise and a parasocial gaze, of you supposedly providing prior criticism… literally, whom'st are you, again? You are an anonymous pest, incapable of contribution, filling up digital space with clutter. Why are you here, exactly? You claim to have criticism of my writing, so what is it? Please provide something, - anything.

>>2757341
Here's the situation:
I have repeatedly cited the source of disagreement ywith me on the subject of political economy, and you brush such criticism off and repeat your incorrect points for over a year. You insist on posting false debunked anti-communist propaganda on a communist website and then feign confusion about opposition to your inane rambling, then claim victory when the stamina of your bullshit outpaces people who get tired of engaging with your stupididity… literally, whom'st are you, again? You are an anonymous pest, incapable of contribution, filling up digital space with clutter.

you know only 1-2 people at most read your posts. you would get more engagement with a no-follower twitter. im certainly not one of them, see greek statue and rambling and i just scroll past and insult you because i dont entertain crypto fascist propaganda.

>>2757350
>you brush such criticism off and repeat your incorrect points for over a year.
Give me a single incorrect point I have made.
Please - actually be relevant to discussion.
>debunked anti-communist propaganda
such as?
>literally, whom'st are you, again?
I'm someone you're obsessed with apparently, even referring to me by a pseudonym. Its creepy and reeks of mental illness.
>>2757357
>you know only 1-2 people at most read your posts.
anyone interested in political economy will find my posts valuable, since that is the topic of the thread; therefore, any person who engages in this thread finds my posts valuable, which must include yourself - unless you were in a thread for irrelevant purposes, which causes me to ask; why are you here, exactly?
>im certainly not one of them
You are replying to me right now; youre hopelessly invested in my effort if you have been wasting your life responding for over a year. Do you have any hobbies?
>i dont entertain crypto fascist propaganda.
Neither do I, which is why I can hardly tolerate communists.

smithanon is epstein

>>2757374
idk man maybe you should stop advocating murdering leftists because they vote in ways you dont like

>>2757377
What…? 🥱

>>2757384
oh right its not murder if you dont consider them people. my bad

having trouble with volume 2 of capital. it's much more of a slog than volume 1.

is supply/demand simply a free-market-ideology reframing of production/consumption?

>>2758006
?
>>2758130
If someone produces 100 of commodity (x) yet can only sell 50 of (x), is the value of the commodities determined in what is produced or in what is sold? As Marx writes in the introduction to the Grundrisse and at the conclusion of Capital Vol. 1, Chapter 1, Section 1; production is determined by consumption, which is to say, supply is a property of demand, yet demand also depends on what is supplied. We may read thusly:
<Not only is production immediately consumption and consumption immediately production, not only is production a means for consumption and consumption the aim of production, i.e. each supplies the other with its object (production supplying the external object of consumption, consumption the conceived object of production); but also, each of them, apart from being immediately the other, and apart from mediating the other, in addition to this creates the other in completing itself, and creates itself as the other. […] This last identity […] [is] frequently cited in economics in the relation of demand and supply
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm
<Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
So then, production has no "real" existence to Marx outside of what is constituted by consumption:
<Consumption produces production in a double way, because a product becomes a real product only by being consumed. For example, a garment becomes a real garment only in the act of being worn; a house where no one lives is in fact not a real house; thus the product, unlike a mere natural object, proves itself to be, becomes, a product only through consumption.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm
So then, as we see, production cannot even count as production where it is not consumed; can the same be said of supply? To those with common sense, a house is a "real" house even if it is abandoned, it just remains ineffectual of demand - so now we enroach upon the Smithian concept of effectual supply and demand:
<Such people may be called the effectual demanders, and their demand the effectual demand; since it maybe sufficient to effectuate the bringing of the commodity to market. It is different from the absolute demand. A very poor man may be said, in some sense, to have a demand for a coach and six; he might like to have it; but his demand is not an effectual demand, as the commodity can never be brought to market in order to satisfy it. […] When the quantity brought to market is just sufficient to supply the effectual demand, and no more, the market price naturally comes to be either exactly, or as nearly as can be judged of, the same with the natural price. […] The quantity of every commodity brought to market naturally suits itself to the effectual demand.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch07.htm
Thus, we distinguish between (i) effective supply and demand, and (ii) absolute supply and demand. If I desire a diamond yet do not have the means to purchase it, my demand is absolute, but ineffective. The same can be said about the example of producing 100 of commodity (x) yet effective demand being at 50 (x). Thus, "demand" measures the rate of exchange, which in the market, has its capacity by the rate of income (e.g. wages). If people were paid more thus, more could be sold in production (this is called "Keynes' Law" in popular terminology, but which is present as early as William Potter, in 1650).

So then, we see Marx sophistically equate production with supply (in the typical Hegelian agony), while Smith confers that supplied produce may not reach the market, due to ineffective demand, thus constituting the degree of waste in an economy as the difference between absolute production and effective demand. Its perhaps for this reason that Marx only conducts his analysis at equilibrium so as to satisfy a mysterious "law of exchange". So, who is the "ideologist" here, exactly? The Liberal Smith or Communist Marx?

First we may read from Marx (1867):
<In every country in which the capitalist mode of production reigns, it is the custom not to pay for labour-power before it has been exercised for the period fixed by the contract, as for example, the end of each week. In all cases, therefore, the use-value of the labour-power is advanced to the capitalist: the labourer allows the buyer to consume it before he receives payment of the price; he everywhere gives credit to the capitalist.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm
This comports to his earlier statements, that the labour-power of the worker is a rented asset, not a sold asset. So then, we can understand Marx's theory of surplus value by this entire relation; the disparity between the period of crediting labour and its compensation.

This consideration is repeated by Hoppe, but reversed into an uncritical capitalist apologia (1993):
<What is wrong with Marx’s theory of exploitation, then, is that he does not understand the phenomenon of time preference as a universal category of human action. That the laborer does not receive his “full worth” has nothing to do with exploitation but merely reflects the fact that it is impossible for man to exchange future goods against present ones except at a discount. […] The laborer enters the agreement because, given his time preference, he prefers a smaller amount of present goods over a larger future one; and the capitalist enters it because, given his time preference, he has a reverse preference order and ranks a larger future amount of goods more highly than a smaller present one. Their interests are not antagonistic but harmonious.
https://mises.org/mises-wire/marxist-and-austrian-class-analysis
Here we immediately encounter contradiction, since the usufruct of labour by the capitalist is immediate, yet the period of payment is prolonged by a fixed term of salary, stretching from a day, to a week to a month. If the worker was paid daily, we could justify the notion that the worker has a greater time-preference, but if a worker waits a month to be paid, at the same rate as someone who is paid weekly, does this not prove exploitation? An alternative can be easily fashioned, however. Short-term loans apply a greater rate of interest than long-term loans (e.g. mortgages) based on credit, which are also under the influence of time-preference for debtors. If rates of wages are dispensed at the same value but at different intervals, then the temporal difference can be scaled by rates of interest. The monthly wage worker thus contracts a lower rate of interest than the weekly worker. Thus, it is in the direct benefit of the worker to be paid as soon as possible and in the interest of the capitalist to delay payment; but this then makes the worker the creditor and the capitalist the debtor, reversing Hoppe's argument around time-preference.

Further, if we compare earlier arguments on interest to the condition of labour, we see then that as more workers compete for borrowers, the rate of interest on labour declines, lowering the wage and extending the period of payment. Thus we can conclude that labour as a rented asset appears to operate by the rate of interest. Time-preference proves the prospectivity of labour as a factor of production, which converts present value into future value by the delayed gratification of labourers, and if justice in government and revenue is in assigning value to those of lowest time-preference, then Hoppe is crafting the theoretical groundwork for socialism, especially in his arguments around Monarchy, since if responsibility is based on ownership rather than lending, and workers own their productive asset, as opposed to capitalists merely borrowing them, then workers have the greatest imperative to government and property. Hoppe also confers correctness to Marx on class:
https://mises.org/podcasts/human-action-podcast/hans-hermann-hoppe-what-marx-gets-right

>>2758401
>https://mises.org/
lol

>>2758587
Yes, that's where you find the writings of Austrian Economists. Thankfully, the site retains some liberal values by issuing free texts rather than imposing copyright. 👍

EKKKonomiKKKs is fascist.

>>2758397
>If someone produces 100 of commodity (x) yet can only sell 50 of (x), is the value of the commodities determined in what is produced or in what is sold?
Maybe my question was poorly worded. I was analogizing supply to production and consumption to demand. I said it because the guy in that video said "when you hear supply and demand, immediately think production and consumption."

>>2758669
>I was analogizing supply to production and consumption to demand
They are the same thing, just in different modes.
The cause of waste is a disparity between effective demand and absolute supply. If everything which was produced was brought to market, prices would be so low as to destroy profits. Marx makes the same point in the Manifesto:
<In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm
It is the same absurdity that there should be more poverty today than in the past, despite more being created. Boisguilbert (1695) writes that cheap food is disastrous to the poor, since the cost of their labour cheapens with it. Thus, more food leads to more starvation, which is an absurdity of the capitalist age.

>>2758669
not a good place to ask your just gonna get shitlib propaganda

So why is oil getting expensive?

>>2759237
because trump is israel's bitch

This video attempts to dismantle Marxism on 2 major grounds: (i) the LTV and (ii) central planning. On the first point, the LTV is counterposed to a "subjective" theory of value (despite the LTV requiring subjective utility in its pretext). The narrator also says that unnecessary labour cannot be accounted into the value of a product (e.g. digging a hole with a spork), which just makes Marx's very argument on average labour-power, or SNLT. Finally, the narrator fails to see that the demand for labour in production is itself a subjective utility which is factored as a cost which appears in the value of a final product. Labour is itself a commodity, which regulates values in their consumption (e.g. cheap versus expensive labour). Menger's notion of higher and lower values perfectly factor into a "cost of production" theory, like Jevons.

On central planning, we can say that there is a transference between Keynes' Law ("demand creates its own supply") and Say's Law ("supply creates its own demand"), showing that market dynamics of distribution are not maintained, and so people receive whatever is given to them (by claim of receipts). This can be facilitated for (i) necessities (such as what public services currently provide), but not for (ii) consumables and (iii) luxuries. Money and markets are necessary to provide capital for prospective investment. The Austrians are perfectly right about this, which is why attempting to centrally plan a total economy is unnecessary and harmful. Thus, central planning is limited to a restricted division of labour (limiting the potential of wealth), yet increased production increases the investment of capital into further divisions of labour. The Marxist fails on this point, yet our narrator never brings it up, since he is too focused on the presumption of markets facilitating value (when Menger himself distinguishes between "goods" and "commodities"). Thus, wealth (e.g. total utility) multiplies itself, and this is comparable to the division of labour, which creates markets. It's for this reason that Marxists lack a proper theory of social wealth, and can only justify poverty (since markets are defined by relative wealth). Its not that central planning "doesn't work", but that it is inherently limited in its possibilities for productivity. That would be my criticism of the Austrian dogmatists, who misunderstand the point; Communism is a system of equivalent poverty, while Capitalism is a system of relative poverty, but scaled between starvation and glut.

Here I provide a self-selected collection of works from François Quesnay (1759-67), which comprises the main materials of what is referred to as the school of Physiocracy (the collaborators of which are the first to call themselves "Economists"). I include the Tableau Economique (1759), On Natural Rights (1765), General Maxims (1767) and The Despotism of China (1767).

>>2762441
> the LTV is counterposed to a "subjective" theory of value (despite the LTV requiring subjective utility in its pretext)
every fucking time lol

What would have happened if we got the bancor instead of dollar hegemony?

>>2764798
a keynesian world would still be capitalist and imperialist. porky would have found a mechanism of action other than petrodollar hegemony.

>>2764798
International development is always tricky due to the nature of competition; this was the struggle of early capitalism, which began by empire and mercantilism in the 16th and 17th centuries, until "free trade" was facilitated in the 18th, by zones of colonial capture. Tariffs on foreign imports was universal, except for goods which circulated within empires (this has legal precedence in the 17th century under "imperial preference" which granted subsidies to monopolies). Free trade then begins as internal markets for empires (while domestic goods were traded freely by custom since ancient times; unfree trade was seen as "usury", while foreign trade carried "risk" and was surcharged). You can see this continuity today where "sanctions" are placed on nations which refuse to align with empires, such as the United States. Free Trade then, is an outgrowth of Mercantile trade (as Engels writes in 1844). Development is then tied up in imperial interest, and so we see how colonies are raised up for the benefit of powers, and afterwards, abandoned for the same purposes. China is currently colonising Africa in the same way Europe did, by conscripting labour to their capital - creating mutual benefit, but to the privilege of the employer. So then, the precedence of development in history is non-competitive. Compromises by inter-national "trade deals" can also be established, such as the US giving China manufacturing blueprints, to be set under a contract of employment for a period of time. Science is a private enterprise, uuterly monopolised, as we see with how some countries are not permitted to have nuclear weapons, but who decides? The hegemon.

The same principle reigns in charities, which foster international development by exploiting local populations. Charities of course facilitate revenue by demand, supplied from suffering, so suffering is in the self-interest of all charity workers (like how crime is in the interest of the police or sickness is in the interest of doctors). We can see this practiced by Bill Gates, who is providing welfare for people as he privatises their land (like a society which replaces jobs with hand-outs). This is what Marx called "primitive accumulation", or the process of accumulating property into a few hands (Vagabond Laws and "Poor Relief" programs only occur as capitalism develops). Mass unemployment is the prelude to the lowering of wages, to create jobs. Marx also spoke of the capitalist character of colonistion (e.g. Capital Vol. 1, Chapter 33) as a means to establish wage labour - imperialism can also cause mass immigration, which pushes labour toward the centres of capital, by the precondition of eviction. Marx in perceiving the nature of Free Trade, sees that with the Acts of Union (1801) between Britain and Ireland, Ireland's industry was exported to England, while Free Trade persisted for agricultural products, now concentrated by landlords. So then, colonisation can also reverse regional development where revenues are consolidated (he writes that the British bourgeoisie and aristocracy share interests). Before 1776, the US also operated as an agricultural centre, later being replaced by Ireland (with the Irish being sent to the American colonies previously in the 1600s. Development of industry in the US was promoted by tariffs (where Marx also sees that regional development in an independent Ireland must impose tariffs). So then, Free Trade between colonies can both develop and undevelop them, according to the method of production implemented (e.g. division of labour, which can be theorised by Smith and Ricardo's "comparative advantage" of Nations). In Africa, there was much mining, so industrial capital had to be invested in, as well as railway networks and the like.

So then, all modes of international development are seemingly colonial in nature, extending down to the IMF, which of course, claims rights to foreign lands by debt (and for which reason Hussein and Qadafi were killed, since they violated the currency hegemony of the petrodollar; Hussein started trading for his oil in Euros and Qadafi wanted to create an African Central Bank - the West were total allies with these men until this point). Friedrich List speaks upon the original development of modern nations in his book "The National System of Political Economy" (1841), which he relates to the protection of national industry against foreign competition, the same as Marx. The Ricardian point would be that one should develop industry to the degree that it is able to be globally competitive, like how China has embraced manufacturing, which has taken away jobs from previous Western industries, and so which should allow this deficit in the market to allow for more diverse investment, such as entertainment, which China does consume.

There is an issue however, which is trade imbalance (e.g. the West consumes more from China than China consumes from the West) leading to a deficit from the West and Surplus from China. This drains national wealth, or the net deposits of currency holders, as prices inflate, taxes are raised and production slumps. This is also why Keynes sees that public credit must be in the business of investing in development (where he traces rates of inflation stabilised by real production and employment). Keynes' famous example of the gold miners suffices, where he says that gold mining is akin to the treasury putting banknotes underground and so prospectors hire labour to dig up the notes (this is now a satire of the public sector, though originally of the private sector, in the circularity of its waste). Keynes proposes the alternative of building houses. A very rough estimate of gold mining costs in 2025 was around £180,000,000,000. The market cap of BTC is also around £1,300,000,000,000.

To conclude, its really quite impossible to achieve mutual and cooperative development in a capitalist system, without underhanded competition, or profit. An international, socialist alliance is the only way to have the benefit of all be the object of social production.

>>2762441
I like how this poster debunked a 4 minute video with 4 sentences

>>2767285
Although I will disagree on the last point since it is childish.
>bananas are grown not produced
>we have much more advanced estimation models for demand
>question is to match labor expenditure to labor consumption in the form of products. (you always want to have productive labor so there is growth in the economy)

Here I have produced a compilation of ancient and medieval economic theory (360 BCE - 1377 CE)
Included in the collection is:
(i) Xenophon - Economist (360 BCE)
(ii) Xenophon - Revenues (355 BCE)
(iii) Aristotle - Rhetoric, Book I, Chapters VI-VII (350 BCE)
(iv) Aristotle - Ethics, Book V, Chapter V (340 BCE)
(v) Aristotle - Politics, Book I (330 BCE)
(vi) Pseudo-Aristotle - Economics, Books I-II (320 BCE)
(vii) Augustine of Hippo - City of God, Book XI, Chapter XVI (426 CE)
(viii) Thomas Aquinas - A Letter on Credit Sales and Usury (1262 CE)
(ix) Thomas Aquinas - Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.77-78 (1274 CE)
(x) Giles of Lessinus - De Usuris (1278 CE)
(xi) Nicholas Oresme - De Moneta (1360 CE)
(xii) Ibn Khaldun - Muaqaddimah, Chapter V (1377 CE)

>>2767987
>>2762461
>>2753599
>>2753236
>>2731155
based. make audiobooks with elevenlabs and put it in torrents and youtube the way dessalines does

>>2768189
this guy?
https://www.youtube.com/@dessalines6388/playlists

Modern Monetary Theory only works in a country that has strong military and currency hegemony. otherwise you just cause inflation AND you can't outsource the consequences by making other people hold reserves of your depreciating currency

Final Edition of Antoine Montchretien's "Treatise on Political Economy" (1615)

capitalism no food

Here is Dengism Elder Scroll Version 9.0

Who's smith anon and what did he do exactly to piss off so many people ? I seem to hear about him a lot.

hey smith
jevons mentioned in this vid posted to iran thread 58

>>2780662
he's the one liberal on here who admits he's a liberal rather than pretending otherwise lol. read through the archives starting with thread 1. just ctrl+f smith and you'll get an idea. he doesn't actually name himself smith anon but he talks a lot about adam smith and, in the later threads, jevons, so you'll know him by that. also his posts are very long and cite a lot of sources.

We may read from Democritus: "The desire for wealth, if not limited by satiety, is much harder to endure than the most extreme poverty; for greater desires create greater lacks." (Fragment 83). Following from the example of Aristotle (Ethics V.V), we see that money is simply a representation of Demand, and further (Politics I.IX), it is only a substitute for real wealth, since the man who has much money cannot consume it for sustenance. Thus, money is in itself impoverishing, like "Midas Touch" (which transforms everything one touches into gold).

Xenophon's Socratic dialogue "Economist" (360 BCE) also explores a paradox of wealth (Chapter II), that the more wealth one gains, the more one must spend in order to preserve it, making wealth a self-defeating venture. This is intuitive enough, for likewise that the state is a construct of preserving property (Cicero - De Officiis, II.XXI), the increase of property must increase the state, taxing old wealth for the new, thus destroying property for the sake of property. In this case, the demand for wealth causes its destruction, like spending money to make more money (t. Xenophon - Revenues, 355 BCE). The conversion of present goods into future goods we may then regard as capital, which by its investment, introduces perpetual poverty.

Xenophon (Revenues, 355 BCE) sees that the only way to increase the wealth of the Polis is by mining for more silver to increase the coinage, to increase commerce. This he tasks with the state to invest in slaves, which will be evidently paid for by taxation. Thus, the capacity of commerce is inversely measured by public spending, creating impoverishment for the sake of marginal gain. What does not hurt the master's purse (e.g. total employment) hurts the slave himself (e.g. labour time), and so the result of riches is proportional poverty.

Even the things of riches; precious stones and precious metals, are useless compared to what is common, as Aristotle writes: "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.” (Rhetoric I.VII). This is the "paradox of value" later stated by others, namely Adam Smith (1776), that luxury is defined by its cost of production, which concurrently aligns with general uselessness (Jevons, 1871). Thus, greater capital investment often means a lesser total product, not a greater one, and so like money, wealth is conserved by its transference into useless things, incapable of sustenance, and thus only attain their demand as a means of exchange. Money is a possession made to be dispossessed; it is wealth which is simultaneously poverty; he that sells everything for money imagines himself rich, yet he is the poor:
<For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matt 16:26)

We can see an admission of the failure of the complexity (variability) of wealth by Jevons (1878):
<As society becomes more complex and the forms of human activity multiply, so must multiply also the points at which careful legislation and continuous social effort are required to prevent abuse, and secure the best utilisation of resources […] crime and ignorance and drunkenness show no apparent diminution—nay, sometimes they show an increase.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/jevons-methods-of-social-reform-and-other-papers#lf0236_head_003
So then, as capital increases, the state increases, and liberties are restrained. Jevons even speaks upon the misery which the capitalist era has brought to England:
<England is traditionally called “Merrie England;” but there has always seemed to me to be something absurdly incongruous in the name at present. It is a case of anachronism, if not of sarcasm. England may have been merry in the days when the village green and the neighbouring common were still unenclosed; when the Maypole was set up, and the village fiddler and the old English sports were really existing institutions. But all that sort of thing is a matter of history. […] There is no difficulty in seeing that there is a tendency, in England at least, to the progressive degradation of popular amusements.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/jevons-methods-of-social-reform-and-other-papers#lf0236_head_003
All manners of amusement he mentions are medieval in conception, when England was "merry" yet untouched by heavy industry, and before the mass privatisation of common land. The increase of wealth then, is not an aid to the benefit of men, but a means of his destruction.

Marx of course makes the same point; that the total productivity of the worker is in proportion to his misery; Jevons also happens upon this (1871), by seeing how higher wages comport to less duration in production, and thus the inverse is true, that the longer one works, the less he will be paid for it. Productivity then, is the enemy of man's happiness. We may further relate the paradox of wealth by Keynes (General Theory, X.VI), where spending money to make money, in the mining of gold, is equivalent to digging up bottles full of dollars, which engages men in production, but as yet, makes men utterly unproductive, by the circularity of the act. This of course is now the agenda of the public sector, which creates artificial demand for busy work. Thus, the supply of labour serves vain ends in this way, by calling to the duty of a self-imposed poverty, while avoiding the causes of real poverty. But as we know, a person is only useful to what is lacking in another; thus, it is in the interest of a doctor to have people be sick, like Khaldun writes (Muqadimmah, V.XXVIII). Poverty then, is the cause of riches, since riches is its own form of poverty.

One possible practical solution, then, is to regulate the production of luxuries (which is in essence, the program of socialism). Adam Smith once suggested the same, after Rousseau (1755), that in taxing luxury goods "the indolence and vanity of the rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the poor" (Wealth of Nations, (V.I.III). This is like how Keynes says that the funds for gold mining ought to be put toward constructing homes, and thus capital to be re-allocated to more pressing demands. Jevons (1883) compares the multiplication of social utility likewise after Gossen (1854), as the variability of consumption, which implies a proportional division of labour, but even if as Jevons admits (1871), the total utility of necessary and consumable goods is superior to Luxury, then the limits to the division of labour ought to be set at the limit of social need, which we may cultivate by public funds. Jevons and Smith, even as Liberals, still supported public ownership of certain utilities, such as the Post Office and Railways, so subsidisation has precedence.

The critique of wealth then resolves itself to the inevitable class warfare of limiting luxury to the ends of social need. In numbers, we may read statistics:
https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/luxury-goods/worldwide?srsltid=AfmBOopgIqhRGHhVKCQjVTufJOoyHQrr4uxthIhf-UhsC09flyephzi6#revenue
The total market revenue for luxuries is around $500B/y, which means $500B which can be re-distributed. The critique of wealth then begins negatively, where demand materialised in money is an active dis-possession of social wealth (all wise men, such as Lao Tzu, Confucius, Socrates and Jesus lacked money, by their own choice). Money then, is a negative magnitude (e.g. debt), as elaborated by David Graeber. The positive critique of wealth is in capital allocation, which if unregulated, leads to inherent inequality, which simultaneously expands the state, creating absolute political tyranny. The Ricardian revision would be to re-frame wealth contra value, but wisdom does not permit the things of consumption to be felt as inherently beneficial, either, and so if a society is determined productively, it is always attempting to gain from a permanent loss. Thus, the critique of wealth is in a way, a critique of civilisation.

The poets speak of a Golden Age, where men have no need of toil; where all things are given by Nature. This was evidently prehistoric, when Cronus ruled the heavens. May the titans overthrow the gods!

grate minds grok alike

>>2784332
Great! Now as long as the general public own this technology, there shouldn't be any issue… What say, Elon?

>>2784335
wow how authoritarian of you. why should the public own what an individual creates?

>>2784936
Are you implying that Elon Musk builds his own electric cars?

>>2784985
no im making fun of mr smiths capitalist apoligism since he is an advocate of ubi as a defense of private ownership and the idea that machines create value as a critique of marxism doing away with the necessity of communist revolution.

>>2768515
It's crazy how a lot of communists completely misunderstand Modern Monetary Theory and systematically say "it can only work if you are the imperialist hegemon!!!" and think they are really smart and above monetary dynamics they do not grasp. But they are not the only ones, libertarians are the same. Also this picture is stupid because it doesn't explain the mechanism in the slightest, countries all around the world print fiat money all the time, everyone did it massively during the COVID-19 crisis but it wasn't MMT.

So MMT is a program that aims to stimulate economic activity with direct state intervention funded by money printed by a central bank, and posits that national debt doesn't matter as much as most people think it does.
Of course, if a central bank does print money carelessly and unilaterally, it causes inflation, MMT never denied this.

However, you can solve the inflation problem provided your country meets the following criteria:

• Its currency isn't commodity money but pure fiat. Already the case all around the world.
  
• It has sovereignty over its currency, meaning it's the issuer of its own currency. El Salvador, but also every Eurozone country and West African countries using the franc CFA don't meet this criteria for example.
  
• Its currency isn't pegged to a foreign one and is free-floating. China doesn't meet this criteria, however Russia, Canada, Brazil and India do.
  
• Now this is starting to get interesting: the country must not have debts denominated in foreign currencies, because you can't decide of the monetary policy of other countries, and you need to acquire their currency in order to pay back your debts. One reason Japan can have such a huge national debt isn't just because of some vague "imperialism" but because Japanese banks own the majority of the national Japanese debt.
  
  

Ok, let's say you have this set of conditions, so you print a bunch of money, start a full employment program, and now the inflation kicks in. What do you do?
Now, we are getting into the heart of the matter: you need to raise taxes, especially on rich people.
Why? Within this set of conditions, taxing people is the equivalent of destroying money, or rather, withdrawing it from circulation.

Inflation is caused by too much money being in circulation compared to the aggregate value of the domestic production, to simplify things. When a state taxes people, it's equivalent to removing this money from circulation. The state can sit on this tax money and do absolutely nothing with it, and bring it back into the circulation when it sees fit.

And why taxing the rich specifically? It's not just an ethical concern for justice and equality or something, it's because rich people tend to hoard money and not spend it that much compared to the magnitude of what they own. Someone living paycheck to paycheck however, is spending most of their income. Taxing the rich would encourage them to spend more, since otherwise the money they hoard would get destroyed by the state. If you add to this a state-funded full employment program, giving a good wage to everyone, people who are currently poor would also spend more, and it would boost economic activity tremendously.

Do you understand now? It's not that "MMT is only possible if your state is the imperialist hegemon", it's that MMT is not in the interest of the bourgeoisie. They don't want to be taxed more. They don't want full employment. If you tell the average prole that the state can't afford welfare programs or starting a job program because the national debt is huge, they will believe you and stay docile. That's simply why MMT isn't being put into practice, but the theory is sound.

>>2785003
> a lot of communists completely misunderstand Modern Monetary Theory and systematically say "it can only work if you are the imperialist hegemon!!!" and think they are really smart and above monetary dynamics they do not grasp
Hmm…

>However, you can solve the inflation problem provided your country meets the following criteria:
> Its currency isn't commodity money but pure fiat. Already the case all around the world.
> It has sovereignty over its currency, meaning it's the issuer of its own currency. El Salvador, but also every Eurozone country and West African countries using the franc CFA don't meet this criteria for example.
> Its currency isn't pegged to a foreign one and is free-floating. China doesn't meet this criteria, however Russia, Canada, Brazil and India do.
> Now this is starting to get interesting: the country must not have debts denominated in foreign currencies, because you can't decide of the monetary policy of other countries, and you need to acquire their currency in order to pay back your debts. One reason Japan can have such a huge national debt isn't just because of some vague "imperialism" but because Japanese banks own the majority of the national Japanese debt.
…Are there any non-hegemonic countries that satisfy all 4 of these conditions?

>>2785006
Countries as diverse as Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, India, Australia, South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and New Zealand already fulfill the first three conditions.
I'm not a financial expert so I don't know the debt situation of these countries, but if they manage to settle their debts denominated in foreign currency, they would fulfill the fourth condition, and Japan could perhaps be a good candidate for this if they would play their cards right.
And then there is the final condition, the taxing one. Just look at what the BlackRock CEO says immediately after the Bloomberg interviewer asks him a question about MMT in vid related at 4:08, that should answer your question.

>>2785014
>Japan could perhaps be a good candidate for this if they would play their cards right.
lmfao that is not good for your argument buddy Japan is probably the only country more synonymous with imperialism than the USA itself.

>>2785018
My argument is that you can't just say "muh imperialism" and keep it at that if you don't understand the economic theory, it's an act of pure laziness. Like look, you just say:
>Japan is probably the only country more synonymous with imperialism than the USA itself.
You don't explain why, you don't elaborate, you just claim something smugly and that's it.
I explained to you the five conditions needed to implement MMT, I gave you a diverse list of countries who are both "imperialist" and "not imperialist" according your vibes, and what they need to do.
If you read my post carefully and critically, you can come up with actual criticism of MMT that don't repose on vibes, but actually economical and political dynamics.
Marx studied the liberal economists of his time, and didn't just say "Ricardo is wrong because he is imperialist". He engaged with his theory, and did a full critique of it. Marxists on this website seem incapable of doing that.

>>2785018
Also, the post I've originally responded to said
>Modern Monetary Theory only works in a country that has strong military and currency hegemony
Japan neither has a strong military like the US does, and it absolutely doesn't have currency hegemony like the US, there is only one world's reserve currency and it's the US dollar. That was my whole point, MMT is doable without these two conditions.

>>2785016
>Countries as diverse as Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, India, Australia, South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and New Zealand already fulfill the first three conditions.
but does anyone besides the USA have all 4

>>2785030
>MMT is doable without these two conditions.
literally only the USA gets away with printing endless currency to pay its debts because it gets to outsource the consequences

it always works if you have a dictatorship of the proletariat but i have a feeling you wont like that solution

>>2785132
If you want to know, look at how much of their national debt is external debt, calculate the percentage of public external debt relative to the total national debt, do your own research and report back.
According to pic related, 96% of Japanese government bonds (i.e. debt) are owned by the Japanese themselves. Japan's national debt is roughly 250% of their GDP. Japan's inflation rate is 1.5%. This is very strong evidence that MMT correctly describe current monetary dynamics.

>>2785154
You don't understand the point of MMT. It is first and foremost a descriptive theory.
The point is that national debt isn't a problem and won't lead to runaway inflation if it's denominated in your own free-floating currency, owned by creditors in your own country, and your tax regime is appropriate.

I mentioned that China doesn't have a free-floating currency. Why? Because they want to keep their currency weaker than the USD to favor exports, and they do this by having a soft peg on the USD (and a few other currencies). In that case, national debt does matter for them, but it's purely an economic and political choice.

Even if the USA would print infinite money, they would experience inflation, this is what happened after the COVID-19 crisis. You need to "destroy the money" with taxes once inflation becomes too high. The point here is that US inflation is a political choice.
The part about funding a governmental full employment program is all about what it is possible to do, but it's just a possibility. All the part of MMT about how modern fiat money behave still apply, and that's the most interesting thing about it.

Here are two good articles about the history of MMT that goes into a lot of detail about its fundamental assumptions:
https://strangematters.coop/history-of-chartalism-modern-monetary-theory-mmt-part-one/
https://strangematters.coop/history-of-chartalism-modern-monetary-theory-mmt-part-two/

>>2785342
Explain your reasoning, because this is a completely separate matter and unrelated to monetary policy and dynamics.
If your DotP face international sanctions (most countries in the world don't), then MMT cannot apply, as explained in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrJDYQrLtHQ
Also you say this, but you seem to agree with the CEO of BlackRock on MMT so lol.

This video makes me realize it's really paradoxical that most communists reject MMT, while it literally gives them the tools to understand what they should do if they capture state power and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat.

If you have a DotP and reject MMT, what are you going to do instead? Take IMF loans?

>>2785353
>Explain your reasoning
China
>If
seems to work out

it doesnt matter if you have inflation if you have a dtop all you have to do is keep necessities subsidized and not freak out and push through it. because the limit of production is human labor capacity not money supply which is only a bourgeois tool for directing it according to private interests. you dont need that if you have modern agriculture because you wont starve all you have to do is commit. if you dont have ag then you will starve but you can still mmt and win: again china. of course this will invite imperialist intervention but that is not a comment on mmt in itself is it?

>>2785372
>China
I literally addressed this in my post, MMT doesn't apply in China. If you don't know how money functions, it's time to stop posting and learn how it works. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/030616/why-chinese-yuan-pegged.asp

>>2785373
>all you have to do is keep necessities subsidized and not freak out and push through it.
How, by taking IMF loans? What would be the monetary policy to do that?
>the limit of production is human labor capacity not money supply
That's exactly the point of MMT.

>>2785375
>I literally addressed this in my post
didnt read your post, dont care
>That's exactly the point of MMT.
ok then stop arguing

the conservative fear mongering is right. mmt is a trojan horse for gommulism. so right that its the other way around. you cant do mmt WITHOUT dtop. if you do the borg will kill you and reverse it.
>That's exactly the point of MMT.
no dumbass thats exactly the point of marxism

>>2784996
>Smith
Eternally rent-free.
>Capitalist apologism
Its Marx who defends capitalism as "progressive".
>private ownership
Tautology; all ownership is private.
>machines create value
Do slaves create value? Do animals create value?
Where does value begin and end? Explain.
>Communist revolution
2 more weeks… 😂

>>2785381
>Its Marx who defends capitalism as "progressive".
relatively so, in context of a specific time in its development

>>2785383
And he was wrong.
What is "progressive", exactly?

>>2785378
>Marxism
Communism is about abolishing money, no?
>>2785373
>the limit of production is human labor capacity not money supply
But for labour to be effective in the market, it has to be employed, and thus tallied by wages. If you have more product than money, you create recession. This can work so long as the product is de-commodified.
>>2785003
>MMT is a program
I would primarily say that MMT is simply the modern theory of money. The old theory of money, as Wray (2013) writes, is comparing a state to a household, where funds are limited by savings. The newer theory of money is to view currency as a sovereign asset which is spent before it is saved, and operates on the basis of credit and debt, with taxation being an obligation upon debt, rather than the means by which saving from the private sector enters the public sector. The further claim is that a balanced fiscal budget (savings/spending) is unnecessary and that a budget deficit (over-spending) can be managed. This is simply (post-)Keynesian policy.
>Inflation is caused by too much money being in circulation compared to the aggregate value of the domestic production, to simplify things.
We could otherwise say that depreciation occurs where liabilities are increased over assets; thus, if liabilities meet assets, there is no loss, while at the same time, assets can become liabilities if they are over-stocked. So then, money can be increased to the rate of potential consumption, measured by total production. Taxing the rich is effective, since it activates their savings, which if untaxed, become harmful against potential commerce.
>Taxing the rich would encourage them to spend more
Alternatively, taxation causes the demand for currency, since if your assets are losing value over time, you are motivated to preserve value by gaining more of it.
>state-funded full employment program, giving a good wage to everyone, people who are currently poor would also spend more, and it would boost economic activity tremendously.
It depends on what tasks you give people.
The public sector is notoriously inefficient, but so is unemployment, which the market necessitates.

>>2785385
increase in productive forces,break down of the feudal social hierarchy

>>2785507
What? This is an insubstantiated claim (even Marx does not say as such). Feudalism in Britain (~ 1066 - 1450) declined after the Great Peasant Revolt of 1381, which was a revolt against tyrannical political power and taxation to fund the Hundred Years' War (1337 - 1453); the appeals of which were a return to local government and an end to the feudal order (such radicals as Ball and Wycliffe lead the charge). Nonetheless, the primary subjects of feudalism, serfs, remained largely disenfranchised in this struggle, as the centres of the urban burghers and rural peasants (e.g. free commoners) ascended into historical relevancy (e.g. the "good parliament" of 1376, which displayed powers over the aristocracy, all the way to the British Commonwealth of 1651, which finally abolished the monarchy and aristocracy; e.g. the Norman yoke). So then, the fight against feudalism was a bourgeois struggle, with its main economic antagonism being taxation (such as we see in 1776). So, the end of feudalism is primarily political, not economic (economic determinism is an inhuman doctrine that justifies all evil).

Further, the birth of capitalism is given from state intervention upon the rights of land (e.g. "primitive accumulation"), a motion which enriched rural gentry over the urban bourgeoisie; agricultural capital precedes industrial capital, and so evictions from the common land entail the creation of a "proletariat" class. So, capitalism is not a result of economic advancement, but political despotism. Marx only calls capitalism progressive because it disposses people of property and thus centralises authority into a few hands, which he claims breaks up the "mediocrity" of free property. So, 80% of the nation starving means progress? If you want to know how capitalism began in Europe, just see how Europe has colonised other nations; we did it to ourselves first. And the idea of feudal "hierarchy" is nothing compared to capitalist despotism, either.

>>2785455
>But for labour to be effective
depends what you mean by effective
>in the market
oh so you mean subjectively effective, we are talking about physical limits here not ideal ones

>>2785721
>Physical limits not ideal ones
If I am productive of useless things, I am in fact destructive

>>2785758
>useless
who determines what is useless?

>>2785507
>feudalism: class society
>capitalism: class society + nukes + ecocide
nice progress bro
>inb4 i get called reactionary for not dickriding capitalism like marx

>>2785761
If I made something no one wanted, we could call it useless.

>>2785766
>we
why would "we" do that? what do you mean by "wanted"? wanted to buy? in a market"? what about the use of the experience of creating it?

this all sounds very wishy washy anon please define your terms

>>2785521
>(economic determinism is an inhuman doctrine that justifies all evil).

Care to expand on this

>>2785353
>You don't understand the point of MMT. It is first and foremost a descriptive theory.
maybe it's descriptive of how certain countries currently operate, and only them
>The point is that national debt isn't a problem and won't lead to runaway inflation if it's denominated in your own free-floating currency, owned by creditors in your own country, and your tax regime is appropriate.
and not everyone can get away with this because there is a very obvious hierarchy of nations currently. If you're Zimbabwe you don't get to MMT your way out of problems but if you're the USA you can.

>I mentioned that China doesn't have a free-floating currency. Why? Because they want to keep their currency weaker than the USD to favor exports, and they do this by having a soft peg on the USD (and a few other currencies). In that case, national debt does matter for them, but it's purely an economic and political choice.
A choice based upon the fact that they aren't an imperialist hegemon with 800 offshore bases, CIA torture dungeons, and the ability to coup anyone who tries to practice economic sovereignty like the USA is.

>Even if the USA would print infinite money, they would experience inflation, this is what happened after the COVID-19 crisis. You need to "destroy the money" with taxes once inflation becomes too high. The point here is that US inflation is a political choice.
A choice based on the fact that they are an imperialist hegemon with 800 offshore bases, CIA torture dungeons, and the ability to coup anyone who tries to practice economic sovereignty like the USA is.

>>2785521
>inhuman doctrine
based

>>2785362
>If you have a DotP and reject MMT, what are you going to do instead? Take IMF loans?

nobody can get a "DotP" or even basic bourgeois economic sovereignty because the US will just coup you if you do and put some comprador in power who takes IMF loans.

See: Burkina Faso, Bolivia, Ukraine

>>2785767
As recited in Xenophon's Economist (360 BCE), a flute as a thing is only able to be useful to those who know how to use it; thus use is relative to the knowledge of a thing. If we try to eat chairs and sit on fruit, we thus fail to use things properly, and so a thing becomes useless to us, while it may be useful to another. Other than primary use, Socrates speaks upon a secondary use, namely exchange. Whatever is possessed thus, if it serves no use to its owner is able to be exchanged, but only in relating its usefulness to another. Thus, usefulness is bound either to direct or indirect acquirement of an object, which attains usefulness relative to its possessor. If I possessed much stock of something that I was unable to use directly (i.e. consume) or indirectly (i.e. exchange), it would be useless to me, and so potentially useful to another. Thus, a useless thing is that which if possessed, causes problems to its owner and is desired to be rid of. So, what is useless to one person may be useful to another, but if it is useless to both, neither will desire it. So then, a useless thing is destructive, especially if what is useful is given to its production.
>>2785770
We may cite Engels on this point:
<We should never forget that our whole economic, political and intellectual development presupposes a state of things in which slavery was as necessary as it was universally recognised. In this sense we are entitled to say: Without the slavery of antiquity no modern socialism.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch16.htm
The idea that History necessitates forms of exploitation for the sake of a telos is nonsense. Engels speaks of "modern socialism"; what "modern socialism"? He makes further failed predictions in other places. Marx is actually more nuanced, particularising historical development to regions of the world, such as here:
<The “historical fatality” of this movement is thus expressly restricted to the countries of Western Europe. 
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol08/no10/marx-zas.htm
He is yet less critical in other places, such as in earlier comments:
<The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htm
Engels internalises this deterministic insight:
<Free Trade has exhausted its resources; even Manchester doubts this its quondam economic gospel […] The sighed for period of prosperity will not come; as often as we seem to perceive its heralding symptoms, so often do they again vanish into air […] we can almost calculate the moment when the unemployed losing patience will take their own fate into their own hands.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p6.htm
Of course, capitalism just leads to more capitalism, or as Deleuze once wrote:
<The death of a social machine has never been heralded by a disharmony or a dysfunction; on the contrary, social machines make a habit of feeding on the contradictions they give rise to, on the crises they provoke, on the anxieties they engender, and on the infernal operations they regenerate. Capitalism has learned this, and has ceased doubting itself, while even socialists have abandoned belief in the possibility of capitalism's natural death by attrition. No one has ever died from contradictions. And the more it breaks down, the more it schizophrenizes, the better it works, the American way.
But of course, this is inscribed into capital itself; booms and busts are laws of the market. So capitalism just creates more capitalism, which is why you must provide a POLITICAL solution to all these woes, rather than nonsense delusions about rates of profit or otherwise.

>>2785797
but he's right in a sense, the abolition of slavery could never have happened if slavery weren't practiced in the first place. the outrage at slavery would never have developed as a popular sentiment without slavery to be outraged at. That is the superstructural aspect of what he is saying. The base aspect is that early agrarian societies began to go to war with each other over land and resources, and consequently, to take prisoners of war. These prisoners of war and their offspring then became slaves. Slavery arose initially as the defeated receiving "mercy" in the form of not being killed upon losing a battle, but it was of course "mercy" which was economically beneficial to the winners of the power struggle. The institution of slavery grew and grew until it became an entire mode of production and, in late antiquity, the slaves numbered in the millions. After failed slave revolutions (such as the servile wars) slavery gradually transitioned to serfdom, and serfdom gradually gave way to wage labor. These forms of exploitation, each less severe than the last, were historical expressions of the material conditions in which they arose, and their gradual abolition points towards a day in which exploitation in general is abolished, hence the anticipation of socialism.

>>2785797
>So capitalism just creates more capitalism, which is why you must provide a POLITICAL solution to all these woes, rather than nonsense delusions about rates of profit or otherwise.
Did Marxism ever deny this? The political solution for Marxism is proletarian revoltuion. Declining rate of profit is only a signal of what conditions make capitalism increasingly unsustainable on its own terms. Today we see a capitalism relying increasingly on rent instead of profit. capitalists know commodity production isn't profitable anymore without artificial scarcity, planned obsolesence, and rent-seeking, so they turn everything into subscription services, destroy surpluses, and deliberately enshittify everything so it doesn't last as long.

>>2785812
But you do realise that this is eschatological rubbish? If we got rid of the idea that communism is inevitable, then what does History really look like? Also, I would counter the dialectical "materialism" of historical analysis. All political failure is a result of ideal contradiction, since if people were internally consistent, they would have rebelled against the dharma, such as we see in a few marginal figures, whose revolution is entirely ethical, such as Christ or Buddha. The point is that there is no "necessity'" to the reproduction of any system. It is theoretically possible to have utopia tomorrow, but in practice, entirely unlikely. My criticism of econonomic determinism then is that it sees all terrible things as necessary and all good things as accidental; it is an apology for the ruling class.
>>2785816
>Did Marxism ever deny this?
Marxism views revolution as a result of misery against the meek, and so inhabits the place of a sadistic master provocating the slaves into rebelling. All comfort is decried as counter-revolutionary and harmful to the cause of martyrdom. Nechayev (1869) typifies this pretension.
>Declining rate of profit is only a signal of what conditions make capitalism increasingly unsustainable on its own terms.
Busts move to booms, and booms move to busts.
>capitalists know commodity production isn't profitable anymore without artificial scarcity, planned obsolesence, and rent-seeking, so they turn everything into subscription services, destroy surpluses, and deliberately enshittify everything so it doesn't last as long.
Marx wrote this in 1848, 178 years ago. I'm sorry, but capital does not die from its internal contradictions.

>>2785797
i know you have a million tricks to elevate your personal opinion to objective truth but they dont actually work in the real world

>>2785824
So you disagree with my definitions of useful and useless?
If so, provide an alternative definition, please.

>>2785823
There's a movie where Willem Dafoe played Jesus. I have to watch this now.

>>2785827
>If so, provide an alternative definition
the fact that alternative definitions can exist means your definition is subjective. thank you for accepting that you were wrong

>>2785832
>the fact that alternative definitions can exist means your definition is subjective
You mean that my definition is either correct or incorrect? I hold to its correctness, but if you disagree, you may counter it, as I have requested. So, do you think my definition is incorrect?
>thank you for accepting that you were wrong
I do not accept that I am wrong about the nature of usefulness without a counter-example, so will you offer one? If not, then my definition is uncontested, and thus appears to be true.

>>2785831
>There's a movie where Willem Dafoe played Jesus. I have to watch this now.
It's a weird movie. It was very controversial when it came out but I can't say why without spoiling it.

>>2785823
>Marxism views revolution as a result of misery against the meek
so? revolution is still a political solution, you just want to limit politics to your useless electoral rituals if you deny this
you are right about capital not dying from its internal contradictions tho, its crazy to me most on this website refuse to accept this, if you are a communist you need to stop coping and adapt to this, the contrary just leads to passivity (i.e. "the conditions arent ready bro, 2 more weeks, meanwhile lets just tail the socdems/libs", this is the absolute of most communist parties nowdays)
not the anon you were replying to btw

>>2785852
>this is the absolute of
absolute state* of
FTFM

>>2785823
>If we got rid of the idea that communism is inevitable
It's not inevitable, the workers actually have to organize among many other preconditions.
>Also, I would counter the dialectical "materialism" of historical analysis. All political failure is a result of ideal contradiction, since if people were internally consistent, they would have rebelled against the dharma, such as we see in a few marginal figures, whose revolution is entirely ethical, such as Christ or Buddha.
I don't know if the formation of new religions qualify as revolutionary even if they have similar qualities as revolutions.
>My criticism of econonomic determinism then is that it sees all terrible things as necessary and all good things as accidental; it is an apology for the ruling class.
Necessary for their own undoing. You can't undo a bad thing until the bad thing comes into existence first, no? And the good isn't "accidental" either. Proletarian revolution isn't "accidental" in Marxism it is very deliberate, no?
>Marxism views revolution as a result of misery against the meek, and so inhabits the place of a sadistic master provocating the slaves into rebelling. All comfort is decried as counter-revolutionary and harmful to the cause of martyrdom.
I don't think that's a fair characterization. I wish I remembered the quote but there is an instance of Marx directly countering the idea that workers pursuing any intermediate relief short of revolution is counter revolutionary. I think it was in response to Proudhon. I saw it posted often on here whenever people were arguing over first world workers having it "too good" to be revolutionary.
>Nechayev (1869) typifies this pretension.
Nechayev wasn't Marxist though. He was one of the pre-Marxist Russian revolutionaries. He inspired Lenin, who was also a self described "gloomy ascetic" but Nechayev wasn't Marxist.
>Marx wrote this in 1848, 178 years ago. I'm sorry, but capital does not die from its internal contradictions.
It doesn't die because of its internal contradictions but it does become increasingly erratic because of them, and crises do become increasingly frequent.

>>2785852
holy pseud

>>2785856
cope
>>2785855
>but it does become increasingly erratic because of them, and crises do become increasingly frequent.
irrelevant if there is no political movement that exploits this, and everything about contemporary capitalist societies is designed to prevent such political movements from growing like they did in the past

>>2785852
>so? revolution is still a political solution
Presupposed by the concentration of the power of capitalists…
So, your "revolutionary conditions" are to the benefit of enemies.
>>2785855
>It's not inevitable
Right, so history is just a cycle of abuse.
>I don't know if the formation of new religions qualify as revolutionary
Why not? Marxism is a religion, yet people see that as revolutionary.
>Necessary for their own undoing
Once slavery was established in Rome, was capitalism inevitable over a milennium later?
>And the good isn't "accidental" either
It is seen as an effect of a necessary evil.
But the evil is unnecessary.
>Proletarian revolution
A non-existent speculation.
>Marx directly countering the idea
Marx ≠ Marxism.
>Nechayev wasn't Marxist though.
The point is that he possesses the same pathology.
>crises do become increasingly frequent.
Crisis is part of capital's growth; it regenerates, like a tree.

>>2785823
>Marx wrote this in 1848, 178 years ago. I'm sorry, but capital does not die from its internal contradictions.
The claim that capitalism does not die from its internal contradictions sounds plausible at first, but history suggests something more complicated. Earlier systems didn’t simply collapse in single revolutioanry events because of internal contradictions, yet they also didn’t persist unchanged. Slavery, for instance, arose across early civilizations like Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, and Ancient Rome as a practical way to organize labor in hierarchical societies with surplus production. It was sustained by conquest, debt, and social structure, but those same foundations made it dependent on constant expansion and control which was unsustainable: An internal contradiction which caused it to transform into something else: Serfdom.

When the Roman Empire declined, especially after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, the conditions that had supported widespread slavery began to erode because of slavery's internal contradictions. Fewer wars meant fewer enslaved people, and shrinking trade networks made large-scale slave systems harder to maintain. In response, the ruling class didn’t abandon exploitation; they adapted it. Serfdom emerged as a more stable arrangement under Feudalism, influenced in part by institutions like the Catholic Church. People were no longer owned outright but were bound to land and obligation. This was a shift in form, not a disappearance of hierarchy.

A similar pattern played out in the transition to wage labor. The system of serfdom didn’t die instantly from its internal contradictions, but its internal contradictions built gradual transformative pressures within it. The Black Death drastically reduced populations, increasing workers’ leverage. Expanding trade, growing towns, and the spread of money economies made rigid labor obligations less workable. Resistance, including events like the English Peasants' Revolt, and structural shifts such as the Enclosure Movement, further weakened the old system. What emerged was wage labor: a system better suited to the new economic realities, where labor became something sold rather than owed.

So if capitalism doesn’t instantly collapse because of its internal contradictions, that’s not really evidence of its permanence, or evidence against its gradual erosion. Earlier systems also didn’t vanish overnight. Instead, internal these contradictions acted as forces of gradual transformation which pushed societies to reorganize labor in new ways. Today, even in the absence of the USSR, and in the presence of the less-than-perfect record of the PRC, wage labor is being reshaped by internal contradictions, the development of the productive forces, and changes in material conditions. People are speculating about AI, UBI, and cooperatives, even though Marxist-Leninists have their traditional criticisms of those.

So, systems rarely “die” in a neat or purely theoretical sense because of internal contradictions. They evolve, adapt, and are eventually transformed when they no longer fit the conditions around them. Capitalism is likely no different: whether or not its internal tensions are decisive on their own, they are part of a larger process through which economic systems are continually reshaped by the world they operate in. So I don't think Marxism has to be teleological or treat anything as an inevitability, nor do I think Marx is wrong to see capitalism a transformative advancement beyond feudalism, i.e. "historically progressive" in the morally neutral sense.

>>2785870
>So, your "revolutionary conditions" are to the benefit of enemies
the material present state of things is the condition (to deny this would mean you can start a revolution ex-nihilo) so yes everything before revolution will somehow imply some sort of benefit for the capitalists because until then the its their system, none of this means revolution is not a political solution, its not even relevant to the point, you are just deflecting and moralizing

>>2785846
>You mean that my definition is either correct or incorrect?
no, subjectivity does not contain truth content

>>2785870
>Marxism is a religion
you're abusing the word religion to the point of meaninglessness, here
>Once slavery was established in Rome, was capitalism inevitable over a milennium later?
i don't make claims of inevitability, but I do think the idea that systems of exploitation are unsustainable and breed the conditions of their own undoing is at the very least touching on something interesting, even if it is not possible to predict what comes next.
>Crisis is part of capital's growth; it regenerates, like a tree.
incomplete. I would say crisis is part of exploitation's evolution, which is why exploitation evolved from slavery, to serfdom, to wage labor.

>>2785875
all of this would be fine if we actually had 150 more years to wait for the zig zags of history but thats not the case

>>2785882
>subjectivity does not contain truth content
Including this statement?
>>2785885
>you're abusing the word religion
Not at all. Marxism is a religion built on faith and dogma; hence, you dont even have to read scripture to still believe.
>exploitation evolved from slavery, to serfdom, to wage labor.
All of these things are transhistorical.
>>2785877
>moralizing
Precisely. Politics ideally pertains to moral discourse.
>>2785875
>practical way to organize labor [slavery]
Most slaves were low-skilled, hence why ancient people would often prefer to hire a wage worker instead, like how the pyramids were built by experts, not suffering masses of meat vainly pulling rocks. A class of artisans and free labourers has always existed.
>An internal contradiction which caused it to transform into something else: Serfdom.
Serfdom is not a conceptual advancement from slavery; it is the same thing - this is like when people say capitalism liberates serfs by makimg them wage workers, when the backbone of early European capitalism was literal slave labour and indentured servitude. Wage workers were also forced to work under penalty of death and starvation - this is just slavery.
>What emerged was wage labor
This is another misconception. Wage labour has always existed.
>permanence
The dharma is permanent so long as we believe in it.
Communism does not escape class society, so will repeat its atrocities.
>capitalism a transformative advancement beyond feudalism
As Marx says, the real thing which defines capitalism is the constant erasure of private property; that it, so "capitalism" is just political oligarchy, or rule of the merchants. That is my classical understanding.
>"historically progressive" in the morally neutral sense.
But what is "progressive", exactly? You pretend moral neutrality, but ascribe moral content. Thus I always ask to stuttering Marxists; "Is communism good? Is capitalism bad?" I will judge your character from the response.

>>2785897
>Precisely. Politics ideally pertains to moral discourse.
revolution is still a political solution even if you think its morally wrong or just a retarded one
just say you dont agree with it thats fine

>>2785897
>Not at all. Marxism is a religion built on faith and dogma; hence, you dont even have to read scripture to still believe.
by this incredibly nebulous criteria, nearly every secular worldview is a religion

>>2785897
> A class of artisans and free labourers has always existed.
Yes. They were very good at making the weapons that that the soldiers used to take more slaves for tasks like mining, picking crops, and rowing boats

>>2785897
>This is another misconception. Wage labour has always existed.
as the primary and most common form of exploitation, whereas previously serfdom and slavery were more common.

>>2785897
>But what is "progressive", exactly?
Less exploitative, at the very least, more subtly exploitative.
>You pretend moral neutrality, but ascribe moral content.
I don't pretend moral neturality, I just said that Marx meant "historically progressive" in a morally neutral way. I.e. in the sense of exploitation evolving into newer and more subtle forms.
>Thus I always ask to stuttering Marxists; "Is communism good? Is capitalism bad?"
Communism is more desirable than capitalism and capitalism is more desirable than feudalism, and feudalism is more desirable than slavery. I would rather work at wal mart than pay a corn tithe to the duke. I would rather pay a corn tithe for the duke than writhe under the lash in the sulfur mine. How is this difficult to understand?
>I will judge your character from the response.
How does this matter?

>>2785897
>But what is "progressive", exactly?
according to most leftists it means neoliberalism for some reason

>>2785928
do you have anything to add to the conversation besides shadowboxing with some shit nobody in this thread said

>>2785919
Right, and the slaves have always been great at following orders.
>>2785916
>nearly every secular worldview is a religion
Some are, some aren't. But tell me, how is it possible that there are "Marxists" who have never read Marx?
>>2785927
>Less exploitative
The industrial revolution and its system of labour has been much more exploitative than serfdom upon humanity.
>Communism is more desirable than capitalism
Why?
>capitalism is more desirable than feudalism
Why?
>I would rather work at wal mart than pay a corn tithe to the duke
Labour aristocrat jabberings.
>under the lash
Like the US slaves who were only legally freed in 1865? These are capitalist conditions; slavery" is not a type of historical society, it is an ever-present state of affairs.

>>2785939
>Some are, some aren't. But tell me, how is it possible that there are "Marxists" who have never read Marx?
are there? btw when you quoted me you left out the part where I said "by this very nebulous criteria". your criteria here is awful.
>The industrial revolution and its system of labour has been much more exploitative than serfdom upon humanity.
and your alternative is what?
>Labour aristocrat jabberings.
are you saying you would seriously rather be a feudal peasant in the 1200s than a wal mart cashier?
>Like the US slaves who were only legally freed in 1865? These are capitalist conditions; slavery" is not a type of historical society, it is an ever-present state of affairs.
under the slave mode of production, slavery was the primary and most common form of exploitation whereas under capitalism, wage labor is. that doesn't mean that different forms of exploitation don't co-exist simultaneously under each mode of production. i thought i already said this but maybe not. you keep acting as though the existence of wage labor artisans in ancient times and the existence of human trafficking and slavery today means that nothing has changed and there are no modes of production.

i had a dream that smith anon is secretly professor jiang

>>2785910
>just say you dont agree with it thats fine
thats essentially been the contention for the whole 2+ years he has been here. he doesnt think its a disagreement of opinion he thinks his particular idealism is objectively true over and above and superior to not just materialism but also other types of idealism. he will rant about being humble and agnostic and relativity and then when pushed slightly switch to ego obstinance and arrogance insisting his opinion matters more than anyone elses without justification while maintaining that its actually materialism that is "religious and dogmatic". its astonishingly stupid

>>2785897
>Not at all. Marxism is a religion built on faith and dogma; hence, you dont even have to read scripture to still believe.
anti-dogma is dogma
anti-religion is religion

If I write a lot does that mean you have to take me seriously?

>>2786093
only if you talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.

>>2786093
you also have to greentext a lot while being a turbo contrarian not giving any actual argument like >>2785897 does

>>2785897
>Marxism is a religion built on faith and dogma; hence, you dont even have to read scripture to still believe.
I can't speak for anyone but myself. I arrived at Marxism not because I was raised Marxist or indoctrinated into Marxism or because I "converted" to Marxism, but because I arrived at my own political conclusions which I then told other people who accused me of being Marxist. So in a sense you are right, I came to Marxism before even reading Marx because my own opinions were called Marxist over and over, to the point that I wanted to know what the fuss was about, and what was this political slur I kept being accused of being. Eventually I did read Marx and found myself agreeing for the most part. I don't think you need to agree with literally everything Marx ever said uncritically to be a Marxist. Here is something Stalin said in 1926:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/11/01.htm

<Lenin’s greatness as the continuer of the work of Marx and Engels consists precisely in the fact that he was never a slave to the letter of Marxism. In his investigations he followed the precept repeatedly uttered by Marx that Marxism is not a dogma, but a guide to action. Lenin knew this and, drawing a strict distinction between the letter and the essence of Marxism, he never regarded Marxism as a dogma but endeavoured to apply Marxism, as a fundamental method, in the new circumstances of capitalist development. Lenin’s greatness consists precisely in the fact that he openly and honestly, without any hesitation, raised the question of the necessity for a new formula about the possibility of the victory of the proletarian revolution in individual countries, undeterred by the fact that the opportunists of all countries would cling to the old formula and try to use the names of Marx and Engels as a screen for their opportunist activity.

This by the way was specifically in the broader context of Stalin quoting something Engels wrote, and saying that it was true when Engels wrote it in 1847, but no longer true in 1926…

(from the same piece linked above)

< Was what is said here, in this quotation, correct in the conditions of pre-monopoly capitalism, in the period when Engels wrote it? Yes, it was correct.

< Is this opinion correct now, in the new conditions, the conditions of monopoly capitalism and proletarian revolution? No, it is no longer correct.

… now you will possibly object that Marxism is still religious or dogmatic even if it can change and adapt to changing circumstances, because so does religion, but nevertheless I think the other anon was right that you are stretching the definition of religion to the point that the word becomes meaningless.

>>2786093
>>2786109
More Hitlerian book burners calling themselves communists. 🥱
>>2786080
I don't think about you; you think about me, a lot.
Does it concern you that I am rent-free in your head?
>>2785952
>are there?
I hope that you are just playing dumb
>alternative
Cessation of the Dharma
>wal mart cashier
Your issue is that you are defining capitalism as the western service economy rather than cobalt mines in the Congo or dead schoop children in Iran and Palestine. Death to Amerikkka.
>nothing has changed
Obviously. History (his-story) is a narrative fiction; a mythology. Marx gets close by isolating the delusion to western Europe solipsism, yet he still believes in the bourgeois bullshit, apparently.
>>2786081
>posts holy scripture to prove he's not dogmatic
As a test of your scepticism, give some criticisms of Marx.
>>2786118
>I came to Marxism before even reading Marx
Obviously.
>I don't think you need to agree with literally everything Marx ever said
So what do you disagree with Marx on?
>stretching the definition of religion
So give an alternative definition of "religion", then.

>>2786177
>I don't think about you; you think about me, a lot.
>Does it concern you that I am rent-free in your head?
i think of you for 30 seconds when I see a reply notification lol

>>2786672
No, you are literally chronicling my posts, because you have a parasocial relationship with an imageboard anon: >>2786080
I guess all them 30-second intervals add up, eh..?

>>2786177
>posts holy scripture to prove he's not dogmatic
you ignore the quote itself. it is saying "this is a method not a dogma." if they are explicit about that your response could be "well I don't believe them." but instead your response is to ignore what they said and insist I'm posting "scripture." I don't appreciate the way you oscillate between accusing me of not reading Marx, and then when I post Marx accusing me of treating it as holy scripture, and then when I say something I disagree with Marx on saying I'm not a real Marxist. It's just a dumb trap you lay in everyone one of these threads. I even point out a Stalin quote where Stalin says (essentially) "Engels was right about this in the 1840s, but this is no longer correct in the 1920s because conditions have changed." If that's not anti-dogmatic, than what is? What would qualify? if I quote anything it's scripture, but if I don't quote anything i'm illiteratel. If I agree with most of marx, i'm a dogmatist, but if i disagree with some of marx i'm not a real marxist. enough of the double binds.
>As a test of your scepticism, give some criticisms of Marx.
>So what do you disagree with Marx on?
The asiatic mode of production is stupid and he said some eurocentric and racist things in private correspondence. He also had too much faith in the USA.

>>2786684
>I guess all them 30-second intervals add up, eh..?
no not really i spend a few minutes on this site a day and barely a fraction of it on you

>>2786177
>So give an alternative definition of "religion", then.
that's an ambitious ask and not even something scholars of religious studies agree on. but i'll give it a shot. I think to distinguish a religion from a mere secular philosophy you need supernatural and explicitly anti-materialist elements. Otherwise it's just civics and ancestor worship.

marxism is less dogmatic than liberal empiricism because it doesn't pretend to be "politically neutral" in situations where there are obvious power imbalances. it is honest a bout its class character and alliances, whereas liberal empiricism pretends to political neutrality while serving bourgeois class dictatorship.

>>2786697
Anon, you are gossiping with strangers about a random guy you are butthurt about by detailing his post history.
>>2786693
>this is a method not a dogma
But its not a "method", and it is a dogma.
>accusing me of not reading Marx
I dont know who you are, so I never said that about you.
>It's just a dumb trap you lay in everyone one of these threads
What threads?
>If that's not anti-dogmatic, than what is?
Why do you need Marxism? That is the point. Why couldn't someone agree with 100% of Marx's writings but still decline to call themselves a Marxist (e.g. form contra content)? I am the biggest supporter of Marx in this thread, yet also his biggest critic. Is there a contradiction? Why should there be?
>>2786702
>I think to distinguish a religion from a mere secular philosophy you need supernatural and explicitly anti-materialist elements.
Why can't secular and civil religions exist?
>>2786708
What is the "dogma" of "liberal empiricism", exactly?

>>2786714
>What is the "dogma" of "liberal empiricism", exactly?
its pretensions of political and class neutrality under objective conditions of bourgeois dictatorship
>>2786714
>Why do you need Marxism? That is the point. Why couldn't someone agree with 100% of Marx's writings but still decline to call themselves a Marxist (e.g. form contra content)? I am the biggest supporter of Marx in this thread, yet also his biggest critic. Is there a contradiction? Why should there be?
that's your issue? the aesthetic issue of whether someone owns the label of marxism? if you really want my answer to that it's simple, i was accused of being a marxist before i knew what marxism was. rather than shy away from the label like some kind of centrist trying to find common ground I just own it. yes i side with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Whatcha gonna do about it?

>>2786714
>you are butthurt
yeah dude so butthurt

>>2786719
>its pretensions of political and class neutrality
And this is the dogma of "liberal empiricists" [zealous jabberings]?
>I just own it
So you require others to give you your identity?
>yes i side with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie
This has nothing to do with Marxism, since Marxists despise the proletariat and want them to suffer, as I have already explained.
>>2786726
Would you not describe this post as butthurt? >>2786080

>>2786714
>But its not a "method", and it is a dogma.
It's not a dogma. If it was lenin wouldn't have ever written anything, nor would there be more authors after him. Do people write novel pieces about the bible? no? they just reintepret it circlejerking all the time. This is dogma
>>2786730
<I just own it
>So you require others to give you your identity?
did Jordan Peterson discover leftypol arguing about obv meaning of words lulz

>Why do you need Marxism? That is the point. Why couldn't someone agree with 100% of Marx's writings but still decline to call themselves a Marxist (e.g. form contra content)? I am the biggest supporter of Marx in this thread, yet also his biggest critic. Is there a contradiction? Why should there be?

Because you believe in marx's economic theory. You are a marxist. the way you decide to go about it is your choice. you can wipe your ass with the label if you please but you are a marxist.

>>2786745
>It's not a dogma
Then why is it called Marx-ism?
>Because you believe in marx's economic theory. You are a marxist.
No, no. Form precedes content; thus, one is a Marxist without any reference to content. Faith precedes reason, like any religion.

>>2786714
>But its not a "method", and it is a dogma.
so just say you think the marxist theoreticians were all lying when they said it was not a dogma and meant to be applied creatively and under local material conditions. then we can be done with it. you think they were liars and I think they were sincerely articulating what they intended to be a context-sensitive political methodology
>>2786730
>And this is the dogma of "liberal empiricists" [zealous jabberings]?
yes pretentions of political and class neutrality are indeed the dogma of the liberal empiricists. they pretend that a truly neutral and purely investigative scientific method without a class character can exist in a class society. the bourgeoisie decide which experiments get funded, and which don't. the bourgeoisie decide which avenues of research and development are worth pursuing, and which are not. the bourgeoisie decide how to apply technology in the real world. and guess waht? it aligns with their class interests. that's why there's more fritz habers than jonas salks. that's why artificial scarcity, planned obsolescence, frequent crises, and imperialist war are treated as "necessary" evils.
>So you require others to give you your identity?
when they accuse me of siding with the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, i agree. I say "Yes, and?" they usually have nothing to add, but in your case you are trying to convince me that a context-sensitive secular political methodology which is explicitly anti-clerical and anti-dogmatic is a "religion."
>This has nothing to do with Marxism, since Marxists despise the proletariat and want them to suffer, as I have already explained.
here you are trying to "give me my identity." but I reject your definition of marxism being a "religion" and I deny "wanting the proletariat to suffer." It's your false definition of marxism i reject, not the label itself.

>>2786753
why is a name and a suffix the entire focus of your assessment here? I could just as easily ask why it is called "liberal-ism" since you are a self admitted liberal.

>>2786177
>Your issue is that you are defining capitalism as the western service economy rather than cobalt mines in the Congo or dead schoop children in Iran and Palestine. Death to Amerikkka.
how did you transform from smith anon, the arch liberal and critic of marxism, into chagos poster, in two seconds flat

>>2786754
>methodology
What is the methodology?
>liberal empiricists
who are the "liberal empiricists" (as opposed to "conservative empiricists")?
>science
But you are not criticising the method, just its application.
>when they accuse me of siding with the proletariat over the bourgeoisie
Which has nothing to do with Marxism.
>which is explicitly anti-clerical and anti-dogmatic is a "religion."
If you dont NEED the cult, then stop calling yourself a Marxist.
>It's your false definition of marxism i reject, not the label itself.
Right, you are a slave to the unholy church.
>>2786757
I go through a bit of the history here: >>2786166

>>2786730
>So you require others to give you your identity?
no, obviously not, people clearly just choose their own identity and design their own character like a video game instead of being products of a society and environment, silly me, i forgot

>>2786765
>Which has nothing to do with Marxism.
so you insist yet even as bourgeois liberals and conservatives constantly accuse everything politically unorthodox of being marxist
>define words like methodology for me so i can poke holes in your definition
i don't like playing endless semantic games with you when you ignore half of what i say anyway.

read this to see what I mean. oops. i quoted marx again. that means i'm a dogmatist quoting scripture, not that i deployed something i found interesting and correct.

>>2786753
why is it called darwinism? why is it called newtonian? why are u so buttfrustrated?

>>2786765
>I go through a bit of the history here:
no one reads your posts lol. i see locke pic or plato pic or the like with pedantic whining and excessive quotes and i scroll

>>2786765
>I go through a bit of the history here:
>>2786166
>Liberalism (e.g. freedom-ism) we may initially regard as an economic movement to allow for free trade.
including the free trade of slaves

>>2786765
>who are the "liberal empiricists" (as opposed to "conservative empiricists")?
the conservative bourgeoisie don't even bother pretending to be scientific like the liberal bourgeoisie do, but both are ardent defenders of capitalism. I suggest reading this chapter.

>>2786753
>pic
do you even care what the context of that quote was

>>2786830
Why wouldn't I? But I'll ask you, was Jesus a Christian?
>>2786793
>asks questions
<doesn't want answers
You are a strange fellow.
>>2786819
>including the free trade of slaves
Yes, absolutely, as Losurdo also highlights.
>>2786827
>I suggest reading this chapter.
I'll give you my thoughts on it tomorrow. 🫡
>>2786773
>accuse everything politically unorthodox of being marxist
And they would be wrong…
>Is frustrated at the possibility of defining the Marxist "methodology" despite endless insistence upon it.
Do you recognise the prideful nonsense?
>read this to see what I mean
Right, and those claims of "socialism" are correct; socialism regulates industry for virtuous ends. Most people are spiritually socialist, even as it written that capitalism is "socialism for the rich"; so it is a universal ethos - one I would describe as "kinship" (as per Plato's "Lysis"). Kin inheres loyalty and equity, or as Aristotle writes, all things are common amongst friends, and thus a society of friends is a society of sharing; i.e. socialism. In the Bible, this may be seen as Church, or Fellowship, where all property was also shared between members.
>i quoted marx
I am very fond of this myself.
>that means i'm a dogmatist
No, you are only dogmatic where you quote Marx to prove how non-dogmatic to Marx you are. Its a paradox of debasing authority by the very derivation from it.
>not that i deployed something i found interesting and correct.
Can you agree with Marx without being a Marxist? That is the question I keep returning to. A very interesting experiment once occured where someone switched the attribution of quotations from both Marx and Christ - the christians ended up agreeing with Marx and disagreeing with Christ! So see how the formal figure of authority is 99% of the justification for claims for a LOT of people; its not in the content of belief; its in the form of it - another brilliant example I saw was someone post a picture of a foetus, asking "is this a human?" to which someone emphatically responded "yes". But it was revealed that it was actually a pig foetus, and so not a human after all. I could go on endlessly on this topic, but I will resist. So then, I see how Marxists display an identical religiosity as Christians in this regard, which is indisputable. So then, the point is that when someone says "read Marx", this is a contentless statement; but when someone says "read *this particular passage* from Marx", they are providing content, and so display literacy. Thus, if one reads Marx, they have LESS of an obligation to be a Marxist, the exact same way atheists know more about the Bible than most Christians. All I want is for people to think for themselves, so if you do that already, then great! 😁 As a private psychoanalysis, I would ask you to meditate on your compulsory identity as a "Marxist". You may discover things about yourself.
>>2786768
So if I said you are (x), you are forced against your own will to internalise this identity? Obviously not.

>>2786857
rent free lol

does he bait like this every thread?

>>2786875
?
>>2786827
In chapter III, I immediately found agreement with Lenin in his assessment of the "passive revolutionist", such as was touched upon by earlier discussion in the thead:
<Against the latter he pointed out that the “proof” of the collase of capitalism can only be, not any abstract logical demonstration, but the successful action of the proletariat overthrowing it.
I would add a Žizekian critique upon this however; that it is already a ceaseless activity which maintains the integrity of the system, and so passivity is revolutionary. Marx discusses this regarding primitive accumulation, that as the dispossessed attempted to leave sectors of industry, there was the compulsion of labour put upon them, and so we see how the system requires our active engagement to sustain itself (this is also why it is the proletariat, rather than the bourgeoisie, which is most responsible for capitalism; the same way it was not Hitler responsible for the Holocaust, but the guards in the camps, who agreed to "follow orders" - we did actually see in the Christmas Truce of 1914, soldiers voluntarily ceasefire, so people always have choices).

There is this concluding passage of section 0:
<Destruction in place of construction; restricted production in place of increased production; closed “national” (i.e. imperialist) economic blocs in place of the formal objective of international interdependence; social and political repression in place of liberalism
Marx discusses this in the Manifesto as well; that a crisis of "overproduction" is unique to capitalist circumstances, and so nations are impoverished by riches, cultivating the destruction of productivity (this can also be understood by monopoly, which lowers the incentive to innovate, since no competition exists). If there is too much competition, there is too much profit to lose (think for example, how patents copyright technology, and so the license to produce is limited by "intellectual property". IP is a capitalist construct. It unofficially began in 1611 with the KJV Bible, which monopolised prints of Bibles to enrich the state. Hitler did the same thing publishing Mein Kampf to get rich. John Milton in his work, "Areopagitica", 1664, discusses restrictions on books by censorship, which have ancient precedence, yet these served political, not economic ends).

In Section I, Dutt makes this comment:
<The purposeful destruction of commodities for economic reasona is in itself nothing new in capitalism, but an integral part of its daily working from the beginning. […]  inherent, not merely in capitalism, but in commodity economy from the beginning
It is pleasant to see such transhistorical consideration (the reason for this is that where production and exchange are mediated by money, absolute supply is measured against effectual demand, and so barter is outlawed, and charity is seen as a vice-ridden deficit). Dutt gives distinction to the contemporary capitalist era in terms of magnitude; that the tendency has been magnified by the scale of the economy. Indeed, as relative wealth increases, relative poverty increases, since they are the same movement, by polarisation. Adam Smith thus provides relative class analysis to show how the enrichment of one class is the impoverishing of another (e.g. rents/wages/profits). I think its also useful that after Smith, Dutt emphasises the "conspiracy" of the ruling class to their ends. I also appreciate the empirical accounts of this conspiracy, which reminds me of what Keynes writes regarding gold mining; that it is structurally unproductive, since it has a contrived end, while building houses accomplishes the program of investment into the public good. We have literally seen the current US President formally declare that he wants to keep house prices high.

In Section II, Dutt shares an excerpt from an 1831 pamphlet, which reminds me of the comments of J.S. Mill (1848), that he doubts whether any "labour-saving device" has saved labour, and contrarily, we see it increase the demand for labour (such as occured with the Cotton Gin for slaves in the US). Jevons (1865) gives his own explanation, that the propensity to produce is exponential to the capacity to consume (e.g. M-C-M'), which under unregulated conditions, causes the ceaseless misery of the working classes. So then, the machine has only enslaved humanity, not liberated it. Upon contemporary conditions, Dutt writes:
<Thus the working class is revealed as the sole consistent progressive force of present society. The capitalists are the modern luddites.
This appears to be nonsense, not for the fact of bourgeois luddism, but of proletarian mechanisation. And further, we see as yet the opposite tendency today, where the tech elite impose their advancements onto society, while the masses revolt against it (e.g. data centres). The accusation of "luddism" is rhetorical, but in essence, luddism is entirely legitimate in all eras. There can be no inherent benefit to technology, while at the same time, there can be inherent harm. Indeed, it is said that the artificers of weapons (e.g. Cainites; fallen angels) bring destruction in its very device. War creates more war, not a greater peace, as Kant once supposed; the same way a police force can only create more crime.

Most interesting is Dutt's citation of Ewing, who sees that the public are too spoiled, and so lack the spiritual sustenance of toil (I wonder how much "toil" Ewing chose to engage in?) This is also a transhistorical discourse of the master, such as we read in Pseudo-Aristotle (320 BCE), where hard labour is glorified, yet the master does not practice it, he only theorises it. The idea of manual labour was a direct affront against the dignity of the ruling classes of Athens, who saw it as exclusively enslaving, while the "work" of the mind was elevated to primary concern. So too was it for all royalty, who were purified by their effeminacy. It is really Antoine Montchretien in 1615 who invites the third estate into equality with politicians, where the mechanical arts are dignified to the status of the liberal arts. It is then the physiocrats who estimate the value of the state to rest in the agricultural produce labourers, and Smith to generalise labour in both agriculture and industry. As Aristotle writes therefore, one only thinks when he is fed.

In discussing German industrial policy, Dutt sees how they as yet conserved industry for foreign exchange, while de-industrialising in the domestic economy. Of course, de-industrialisation is the case within contemporary service economies, beginning in the "neoliberal" era (yet Marx identifies de-industrialisation with imperialism, and thus a consolidation of surplus value in different sectors). What differs however is that Germany emphasised artisinal labour, while today it is emotional labour, and distribution of an imported product. I think viewing the Reich as technophobic is false though, since otherwise they wouldn't engineer such weapons of war (which he addresses a bit further down). His portrayal is too reductive from this perspective, of a few policies to protect labour from unemployment.

He makes this comment:
<Only in socialist monopoly does the incentive to improvement of technique remain, since every improvement of technique means an increase in general standards and dimunition of labour.
Of course, this is true; only where workers control the means of production can wages be increased and duration lowered, while the oppisite is true for capital.

In Section III, Dutt writes that liberal attitudes are reversed by the encroachment of luddism (Marx writes that the bourgeosie was revolutionary from around 1650 - 1820, reflected in their economic theory, whence afterwards comes "vulgar economics", and a final synthesis in 1848, represented by continental revolution and J.S. Mill). The theories of the bourgeoisie then tell the tale of their class interest, as it is supposed, with Dutt perceiving the decline in scientific enthusiasm as affective of this counter-revolutionary crisis. Of course, this makes less sense in the history of thought, where the presocratic philosophers (600-400 BCE) were mostly materialists, while idealism only comes as a progress, culminating into world religions like Christianity and Islam. If history is progressive of consciousness, why would we discard this original creed (of whom both Stalin and Lenin give credit)? Graeber gives an alternative explanation, that materialism and idealism are primarily symptoms of monetary policy (for example, Schumpeter describes Plato as the first theorist of credit-money, but as yet falsely attributing a commodity-money theory to Aristotle). We see the Roman Empire engage in Fiat, which portrays a different standard between the nominal and the real, etc. These are entirely too reductive also. Engels is better, by showing how the "mysticism" of the bourgeoisie comes from a false adherence to empiricism, which in rejecting the theoretical, limits its means to know what is real. He also speaks conversely upon the overly-theoretical aspects, which devise higher dimensions and cause baseless speculations thereafter (it should be know that the occult was at its most popular in the late 19th century; previously dealing in sciences like Alchemy, to shifting toward an unscientific worldview. Crowley by inspiration from Frazer's "Golden Bough", saw Magick as subject to the scientific method, Thelema inspiring such scientists as Jack Parsons - even today there is a statue of Shiva and his Dance of Destruction at CERN. Frazer differentiates between magic as proto-scientific and religion, as its complete corruption into ritual). So then, I would be more Hegelian, by seeing the "progression" of ideas as determined by common reason, not material circumstances, since if a man can be "ahead of his time", time has put no limits on his understanding.

Dutt accuses capitalism of having no further rational defense and so it must descend into obscurantism. This is too discrediting of a canon of work by Dutt, since he presumes intentional propaganda, rather than unintentional fascination. The idea of the Aryans for example, has a rational aspect to it; anti-semitism has a rational aspect to it; Fascism itself can be rationalised, etc. And so the purpose of the critic is not to censor, but to bring the fullness of reason to the partial irrationality of certain ideas. If you meet a fascist, debate will bring him into sense more than blatant antagonism. I am a true believer in public reason; Charlie Kirk did not deserve to die, and I would never celebrate such tyranny. So then, once you encounter the limits of a totalitarian's reason, you will discover the filibuster; the impasse, the mocking, etc. That is when ghastly unreason secures the victory of your soul and truth is present to all reason. Even if they kill your body, they cannot kill your soul.

Dutt concludes by constituting Fascism as the burning of books, but I would formalise this as totalitarian (e.g. Partisan; Schmittian), since many different regimes (whether Fascist, Communist or Liberal) engage in this. As cited earlier, Milton speaks upon the medieval burning of books by the Church, so there is nothing historically unique in limiting public information.

In Section IV, Dutt writes:
<Parliamentary democracy was essentially the form through which the rising bourgeoisie carried through its struggle against feudalism and against old privileged forms
This is true, as I have previously related. The rise of the House of Commons in England had its fixture in the late 14th century up until its dethoning of the aristocracy in 1651. After this we get a temporary Restoration (like in the French Revolution), but this is quelled by a new constitution during the Glorious Revolution (1688-9). The bourgeoisie are seen to advance industrial capital over agricultural capital (theorised between Physiocracy and Classical Economics), and terminating in the 1820s, according to Marx (where in British imperialism, surplus value consolidates between land and capital).

Dutt interestingly describes the process of Bureaucracy by the development of a shadow government (or "deep state") apparatus, which disempowers parliament to a mere caricature. Of course, Plato is the great theorist of oligarchy, by their ideal appointment as the "Guardians" of a state. The aristocratic model is attempted, but does it succeed? As Dutt reveals, the house of commons had no desire for World War, yet the deep state wanted it, and it was evidently a disaster. In this case, the electorate are more wise than their supposed leaders.

Dutt also sees that revolution is bought off by super-profits distributed to a labour aristocracy. Is it not preferred to speak in the Roman parlance of "Bread and Circus"? Another transhistorical motion. He also writes:
<The confrontation of the working class and capitalism can no longer be covered by liberal and reformist pretences of improving conditions under capitalism
So, another failed prophet, like Marx and Engels.

Dutt concludes this section by saying:
<The critique of Communism or Marxism against capitalist democracy is not that it is "too democratic", but that it is "not democratic enought"
But what is "democracy"? Rule of the Demos; the property-owning citizens (or as Lenin once remarked, rule of the slave owners). So, how can you have a democracy if citizens are not permitted to own property, and all propery is held in the state? In classical understanding, this is a tyranny, not a democracy. This is the fatal misunderstanding of Communism; you are not erasing property as such, you are simply concentrating its ownership into fewer and fewer hands. Marx agrees with this, which is why his politics are detestable.

In Section V, Dutt complains about movements to national self-sufficiency as simply being the means to enrich monpolies (such as we see with the Corn Laws), but haphazardly sees any attempt to restrict free trade as an approach to Fascism; as though free trade is itself always mutually beneficial ("free trade" of course, namely being an imperialist device). Dutt is disappointing in his fundamentalism here, sounding much more like a Libertarian than a Communist. Even Marx promoted protectionism as a means to develop national industry; was he, like Keynes, like Hitler?

In Section VI, Dutt looks at War and its constant potential. Of course, War is extremely profitable to a few and impoverishing to most. War is a means to expend saved up stock of weapons; it clears the way for a greater capacity of death, and so mimics capital in its motion. War of course used be more shameless, such as we read in the Iliad; rape, murder and theft - the three great crimes of civil society, are exported abroad. This is of course a transhistorical reality, naturalised by many, such as Heraclitus (Fragment 8, 54):
<All things take place by strife […] War is the father of all and the king of all; and some he has made gods and some men, some bond and some free.
This extends into Hobbes and Locke, but is corrected by Rousseau; War is organised violence, and so is political. It is a battle between stated territories for their conquest, not an inherence between all men. If that were so, there could be no loyalty or honour. But indeed, the merchant sees cheating as a gain, and so he forfeits integrity, and universalises selfishness as virtuous.

>>2787354
>(this can also be understood by monopoly, which lowers the incentive to innovate, since no competition exists).
when corporations institute internal competition through bookkeeping and incentive structures, they lose the productivity of monopoly (horizontal and vertical integration) since departments within corporations then have an incentive to sabotage each other in the name of "winning" the "competition" to impress the board. sears famously fell apart because of this internal free market they tried to create. but if you leave the monopoly in place, the monopoly will still destroy productive forces in the name of price regulation, to protect profit rates, since you don't have to report destroyed productive forces to your shareholders as a loss of profits. you don't have to report when your pour milk down the drain, but you do have to report when you gave milk away for free because it was too cheap. so the problem here is the centrality of the profit motive to the functioning of the entire economy, rather than some failure to return to an earlier stage of idyllic competition between small firms, no?

>>2787354
my guy is literally incapable of not responding lmao absolutely obsessed

>>2786875
>>2787321
>>2787890
hey i don't always agree with the smith anon but can you cool it with the low effort posts. i waited for 3 before complaining because i know complaining doesn't add anything either. i actually wanted him to respond to the dutt video i sent him and I'm glad he did.

>>2787890
?
>>2787867
>price regulation, to protect profit rates
Precisely; this is why Ricardo says the law of value only exists under conditions of perfect competition, because otherwise prices can be manually set.
>you don't have to report when your pour milk down the drain, but you do have to report when you gave milk away for free because it was too cheap
Yes, same way capitalist profit can be measured at a propotional rate of corporate waste. This was discussed earlier in the thread:
>>2726637
>>2726944
Thus, profit is literally just a giant pile of rubbish.
>so the problem here is the centrality of the profit motive to the functioning of the entire economy, rather than some failure to return to an earlier stage of idyllic competition between small firms, no?
I am reminded of Marx's comments upon the fetishism of commodities; that where there is commodity exchange, the essence of man is alienated into this idol. We aready see the gradation of the cosmos displayed by a procession of metallic ages by Hesiod (800 BCE), where Gold is greatest and Iron is worst. Despite this, as Aristotle remarks, iron is a more useful thing than Gold, and so what is "greater" is also worse. Thus, the spectre of value has already captured man's imagination, with its present internal division. This has its sacred device in sacrifice, where temples of gold and silver are crafted, where food is rotted and burnt and drink is split as an offering (surplus value is already here as a political excess). In the Book of Malachi we see the Israelites chastised for coveting the sacred offerings for themselves; the unblemished lamb is made as food rather than service to the deity (a conflict between cost and use). So then, the logic of value is inherent to worship, and thus operates as man's central subjectivity. Marx's brilliance is in his materialist reversal of Hegel on this point; where geist is identified as value, with history being its self-determination. So then, the question of what an economy orients itself around concerns means and ends. The real issue is the universal monetisation of existence; Carlyle's "cash nexus" which destroys traditional bonds. Aristotle also makes distinction between the oikos (household) and the market, where a household is ideally self-sufficient and trades by barter, while the market forces one to trade in money (what Aristotle fundamentally views as "unnatural", and thus leads to usury, or profit, the most unnatural of evils, as was seen for milennia). However, Aristotle still permits the existence of a market for whatever is inessential, and thus superfluous of our demand. This appears to be the pre-modern orientation, which often invoked barter, since money was always scarce (itself being a device of taxation, which in the past, mainly concerned the wealthy). I will also criticise Adam Smith here for presuming an equality of value in barter, since value by its nature must be standardised by money. Upon modes of exchange, there is also Symbolic Exchange and Gift Economy, which require markets, but not commodity markets. For example, the internet is an information market and a de facto gift economy, so I would look at this spontaneous model as ordo ab chao, which works because it is entirely secondary to necessity.

So then, the issue is indeed that the "entire" economy is based around profit, but we can also de-monetise, de-commodify and nationalise many parts of it, with the remainder being harmless, since it is unnecessary to society, making spending a leisure. I would also relate Aristotle's notion of the oikos to Marx's view of the destruction of the family, where for example, children pay "keep" to their parents, making family bonds a monetary transaction, and so parents indebt their children. Now, Graeber speaks of the transhistorical nature of this, in religious rites of ancestor worship, where (such as currently in African folk tradition), libations (drink offerings) are given to our dead family members (the same way Priam gives libation to Zeus). We may see how graveyards have gifts scattered around the shrines, which represents a debt one owes to those in their clan (e.g. the fifth commandment). So, perhaps the family was always rife with antagonism (like how Cain kills Abel, Ham betrays Noah, Abraham offers to kill Issac, Lot sleeps with his daughters after offering them for sacrifice, Jacob usurps Esau and deceives Isaac, and Israel's children betray Joseph; as yet, there can be better medium between people than money.

>>2787953
me i read that

>>2787893
>can you cool it with the low effort posts
>hey i don't always agree
can you go fuck yourself with this liberal appeasement ?

>>2788040
just don't click the thread if you don't like talking to this particular nerd
>>2787909
>Precisely; this is why Ricardo says the law of value only exists under conditions of perfect competition, because otherwise prices can be manually set.
It's less that they regulate prices directly and more that they destroy productive forces to create artificial scarcity. it's an indirect mechanism which allows them to preserve the illusion of indifferent economic laws working as they are supposed to.
>>2787909
>as Aristotle remarks, iron is a more useful thing than Gold
if only he had known about semiconductors
>>2787909
>This has its sacred device in sacrifice, where temples of gold and silver are crafted, where food is rotted and burnt and drink is split as an offering (surplus value is already here as a political excess).
Yeah ancient society's willingness to sacrifice vegetation, animals, and even humans is shocking when you consider just how much more scarcity they suffered from than us.
>I will also criticise Adam Smith here for presuming an equality of value in barter, since value by its nature must be standardised by money.
Isn't the idea here that it was standardized by time first? Like if I bring grain that took me 3 hours to harvest, and you bring me fish that took 3 hours to catch, we both can have a rough idea that these are equal in "value" as labor time even without the advent of money (though a true barter economy never existed).

>So then, the issue is indeed that the "entire" economy is based around profit, but we can also de-monetise, de-commodify and nationalise many parts of it, with the remainder being harmless, since it is unnecessary to society, making spending a leisure.
So you're saying give people their basic needs and have the market exist for non-necessities. Isn't this what the UBI people are on about? I'm scared of UBI as an American because I'm worried it will tie the prosperity of the average person to imperialism, even moreso than it already is, destroying any remaining political will to resist what our government does to other people.

>>2787354
>it is the proletariat, rather than the bourgeoisie, which is most responsible for capitalism; the same way it was not Hitler responsible for the Holocaust, but the guards in the camps, who agreed to "follow orders"
… The working class betrayed itself and humanity …

>>2787354
>think for example, how patents copyright technology, and so the license to produce is limited by "intellectual property". IP is a capitalist construct. It unofficially began in 1611 with the KJV Bible, which monopolised prints of Bibles to enrich the state. Hitler did the same thing publishing Mein Kampf to get rich. John Milton in his work, "Areopagitica", 1664, discusses restrictions on books by censorship, which have ancient precedence, yet these served political, not economic ends
the worst way patents are used is "patent trolling" where you buy up patents for inventions and sit on them to restrict others from using those productive forces, while not necessarily using them yourself

>>2787354
>Adam Smith thus provides relative class analysis to show how the enrichment of one class is the impoverishing of another (e.g. rents/wages/profits). I think its also useful that after Smith, Dutt emphasises the "conspiracy" of the ruling class to their ends.
I'm sure you're familiar with the passage from WL&C:
<A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal or even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls.
<Karl Marx
<Wage Labour and Capital (1847)
>I also appreciate the empirical accounts of this conspiracy
Yeah man that's what makes that Dutt chapter such a banger. It's full of empirical agitation. Like you have to be dead inside to not get angry reading it.
> which reminds me of what Keynes writes regarding gold mining; that it is structurally unproductive, since it has a contrived end, while building houses accomplishes the program of investment into the public good. We have literally seen the current US President formally declare that he wants to keep house prices high.
because his generation see their houses as speculative assets, like a stock, rather than as a use value
>In Section II, Dutt shares an excerpt from an 1831 pamphlet, which reminds me of the comments of J.S. Mill (1848), that he doubts whether any "labour-saving device" has saved labour, and contrarily, we see it increase the demand for labour (such as occured with the Cotton Gin for slaves in the US). Jevons (1865) gives his own explanation, that the propensity to produce is exponential to the capacity to consume (e.g. M-C-M'), which under unregulated conditions, causes the ceaseless misery of the working classes. So then, the machine has only enslaved humanity, not liberated it.
We forge our own chains and kill for the right to wear them proudly

>Upon contemporary conditions, Dutt writes:
<Thus the working class is revealed as the sole consistent progressive force of present society. The capitalists are the modern luddites.
>This appears to be nonsense, not for the fact of bourgeois luddism, but of proletarian mechanisation. And further, we see as yet the opposite tendency today
See, that part of the chapter really resonated with me. I didn't see it as nonsense at all precisely because of all the planned obsolescence, destruction of productive forces, patent trolling, imperialist wars etc already discussed. The fact that things have now perhaps zagged where they once zigged notwithstanding.
>where the tech elite impose their advancements onto society, while the masses revolt against it (e.g. data centres).
to me these latest advancements are the very same destruction of productive forces Dutt wrote about, but masquerading as new productive forces. Instead of burning coffee for fuel in the ships as Steinbeck wrote, we burning through thousands of GPUs to … generate anime tiddies. This is not a real force of production… at least not in many of its most common and well advertised applications.
>The accusation of "luddism" is rhetorical, but in essence, luddism is entirely legitimate in all eras. There can be no inherent benefit to technology, while at the same time, there can be inherent harm. Indeed, it is said that the artificers of weapons (e.g. Cainites; fallen angels) bring destruction in its very device. War creates more war, not a greater peace, as Kant once supposed; the same way a police force can only create more crime.
To me, each technological advancement can be used in different ways, and it is up people to decide whether the destructive or productive ways will dominate.
>Most interesting is Dutt's citation of Ewing, who sees that the public are too spoiled, and so lack the spiritual sustenance of toil (I wonder how much "toil" Ewing chose to engage in?) This is also a transhistorical discourse of the master, such as we read in Pseudo-Aristotle (320 BCE), where hard labour is glorified, yet the master does not practice it, he only theorises it. The idea of manual labour was a direct affront against the dignity of the ruling classes of Athens, who saw it as exclusively enslaving, while the "work" of the mind was elevated to primary concern. So too was it for all royalty, who were purified by their effeminacy. It is really Antoine Montchretien in 1615 who invites the third estate into equality with politicians, where the mechanical arts are dignified to the status of the liberal arts. It is then the physiocrats who estimate the value of the state to rest in the agricultural produce labourers, and Smith to generalise labour in both agriculture and industry. As Aristotle writes therefore, one only thinks when he is fed.
paragraphs like this one are why i really enjoy reading your posts. no further comment for now….

>>2787354
>Dutt concludes this section by saying:
<The critique of Communism or Marxism against capitalist democracy is not that it is "too democratic", but that it is "not democratic enought"
>But what is "democracy"? Rule of the Demos; the property-owning citizens (or as Lenin once remarked, rule of the slave owners). So, how can you have a democracy if citizens are not permitted to own property, and all propery is held in the state? In classical understanding, this is a tyranny, not a democracy. This is the fatal misunderstanding of Communism; you are not erasing property as such, you are simply concentrating its ownership into fewer and fewer hands. Marx agrees with this, which is why his politics are detestable.
Well home ownership is higher in China, and the DPRK, and the DPRK enshrines property ownership in article 24 of the constitution.

>>2789508
Indeed; profit is sublime wastefulness.
>>2789521
I entirely concur; the liberal west is more totalitarian and less democratic than illiberal nations in many ways. This is also why I say that there is a difference between (i) authoritarianism and (ii) totalitarianism. As Deleuze and Foucault write, a "control society" can be less free than a "disciplinary society". Žizek makes the same point.
>>2789520
>This is not a real force of production
I suppose you are right! There is a difference between real and speculative assets; AI is a bubble. I will reconsider my position, then. 🤔 I would only add that "productivity" is relative to efficient causes, and so you can increase productivity by simply lowering demand. Poverty begins in desire, as Democritus writes. Or as Mr. Wallace once wrote, "more money, more problems."
>it is up people to decide whether the destructive or productive ways will dominate.
I do admit that I cannot disagree with Dutt's assertion upon the necessity of industrial socialism, despite my own misgivings concerning the industrial revolution. We are here now, so we must make the best of the situation.
>>2789492
>semiconductors
Well, even today, most gold is held in private hoards, not as materials for technology. What's funny about the gold market though is that it grows by selling other people gold, and so the utility of liquidity over hard assets is attested to in its very business model. Gold prices are also kept at 300% inflation over production costs, so the silverbugs are right that it is overvalued. Contrarily, the goldbugs are right that silver is a stupid investment (the only potential for which is that in the future, exchange rates lessen and so it trades better for gold. So then, the purpose of having silver is to exchange it for gold).
>much more scarcity they suffered from than us.
Well, its all relative to demand (e.g. money). There is no such thing as absolute scarcity, only relative scarcity.
>Isn't the idea here that it was standardized by time first?
Yes, but time in production cannot be accounted for until it is represented in wages which measure time. This was a contention in the first thread, where I took the "empirical" position as per the abstraction of value. If it takes 3 hours to hunt (x) and (y), there is no necessity that (x) will trade for (y) in equal quantity. This is a bourgeois projection into the past, as Marx rightly says, yet Marx seems to commit the same fallacy by presupposing equality in barter exchange, yet at the same time seeing value as "stamped" by money. This is then confusion in the LTV in general. Now, Aristotle sees equality in exchange as determined by supply and demand, which thus estimates a mutual supply and demand of goods between buyer and seller (Marx also gets his "form of value" from Aristotle here; t. Nicomachean Ethics, V.v). The form of value is: (aX=bY). Thus, 1 house sells for 5 chairs. Aristotle says this is determined by "demand", which is unfortunately obscured by Marx, who imposes "labour" as the medium between the equality of goods. If we take Aristotle's view however, the exchange of (x) and (y) can be unequal in terms of production costs. What is later seen however, is that if supply meets demand, then costs become equal. This requires market competition however, which is not present at the origin of trade. Wages thus come later as a means of accounting for the costs of the production of commodities (with labour itself being a primary commodity). Now, there is of course a logistical reality to production, but production does not inherently accord to the laws of value (indeed, Marx is attempting to liberate production from value, by transferring production from exchange to consumption).
>though a true barter economy never existed
A barter "economy" never existed, but barter itself is a transhistorical reality (which is why Graeber is correct that Smith is historically confused in his progressive vision). I would also emphasise gifting as a transhistorical form of unequal exchange (e.g. "symbolic exchange", a la Baudrillard). Smith is right that exchange as a principle is inherent to man's natural faculties (e.g. the exchange of words), but not all exchanges are "economic". For example, we are engaging in the mutual transfer of information, yet neither of us pays with anything except time and attention, freely chosen, without coercion. This is also something worth emphasising to Marxists; the internet is a market, but markets have a transhistorical character and also an anti-capitalist essence (since capital is only interested in monopoly, not competition).
>So you're saying give people their basic needs and have the market exist for non-necessities.
Yes; a public and private sector. I have previously scaled commodity production in terms of general and marginal utility (e.g. according to cost). There are three types of commodity: (i) necessaries, (ii) consumables and (iii) luxuries. Each are developed by the linear development of a division of labour, which because most demand comes from the wealthy, tends toward luxury production. Thus, a free market abandons the cause of necessity, by working backwards from profit. The liberals of the 18th century suggested taxing wealth in consumption, such as Rousseau (1755) and Smith (1776). What this amounts to is the universal recognition of the problem of luxury, and so the need to regulate it. This can be affected by raising homogenous production and limiting heterogenous production (e.g. specialisation), since luxury derives its value from specialised labour and technique. At the same time, a society with money will have savers and savings turn into capital; thus, there needs to be an outlet for this too. Luxuries like holidays and so on must also be considered - if you didn't have money, how do you decide where to go and for how long? The issue of travel is inherent with Communist governments, which in all cases, restrict emigration, and so imprison people in their local territories. Money solves this problem, but also causes other problems. Balance must be met.
>the prosperity of the average person to imperialism
Well, the current alternative is to just create homeless people. More reforms than simply UBI are necessary.

>>2787354
> I am a true believer in public reason; Charlie Kirk did not deserve to die, and I would never celebrate such tyranny. So then, once you encounter the limits of a totalitarian's reason, you will discover the filibuster; the impasse, the mocking, etc. That is when ghastly unreason secures the victory of your soul and truth is present to all reason. Even if they kill your body, they cannot kill your soul.

Charlie Kirk was a greasy little multimillionaire thinktank funded chud con artist who's whole schtick was creating an asymmetrical setup where he'd have a microphone, a huge sound system, a willing audience, pre-prepared talking points, etc, and then pick out either audience plants and/or unprepared college kid liberals with no real public speaking, charisma, or ideological coherence, and then bully them in front of his willing audience to create the illusion that he won the "battle of ideas." This is why there can be no real " battle of ideas" Money and power always wins. I think his death may have been a frame up or a false flag, but it was still very funny either way. I wish he had actually lived so we could see him "debate" with a tracheotomy.

>>2787354
> I am a true believer in public reason; Charlie Kirk did not deserve to die, and I would never celebrate such tyranny.

if you would please consult the graph

>>2790344
Abusers don't like to be challenged on their bullshit, its true.
>>2789927
His platform of public debate was Socratic, and like Socrates, his death is justified because he was supposedly "corrupting the youth" by challenging people to think for themselves. And it is true that youth suffers hubris, which is why it is always best to punish pride, not to nurture it. If you say dumb things, you deserve to look dumb. And by the way, Kirk did not "win" all of his arguments (you appear to be self-reporting). All those young people voluntarily entered debate with the host; there was no coercion or bullying - perhaps you are also forgetting that Kirk was a relatively young man himself. He did not deserve to die for his words.
>Tracheoctomy
Don't worry, he's got a whole new upgrade… 🦾🗿

>>2790367
Kirk didnt deserve what happened to him for debating people, he earned it by being an evil person, and world is now a tiny bit better place without him.

>>2790378
What made him evil? Having disagreeable opinions?

>>2722737
All of this recent intellectual masturbation and debating over whether Kirk deserved to die or not–it's absurd. He was a moron, but that was essentially his greatest crime–being a dumb guy with right-wing politics, generally unsubstantial in his reasoning and vehemence. By this metric, at least 50% of America deserves to die. I know it's fun to type "Based" facetiously in response to that, but in actuality a movement cannot hope to prosper or change the minds of the masses if this is how misanthropic its foundation is. Great communist regimes of the past worked with the backwards and reactionary peasantry to educate and sublate its consciousness into something new, they didn't advocate acts of stochastic terrorism against random media figures whose primary demographic probably revolved around irrelevant boomers anyways.

>>2790389
charlie kirk lol I already forgot about him and if I forgot him then at least 90% of the USA forgot, and 99% of the world forgot… so who cares

>>2790593
yes that pic is a truth nuke and i wish anons would name their files in such a way as to name the source.

the proper response to seeing a luigi mangione situation for example is to just smile, be happy it happened, recognize it's futile and adventurist, but not complain about it, and move on to more effective strategies.

>>2790367
>His platform of public debate was Socratic, and like Socrates, his death is justified because he was supposedly "corrupting the youth" by challenging people to think for themselves.
I'm just going to interpret you charitably here and chalk this up to you being british and not actually knowing what this guy did for a living. Anon is absolutely correct. He was a thinktank funded con artist using his absolutely astroturfed image as an american socrates to further the agenda of the wealthy reactionary american bourgeoisie. how is it that even mark twain, a nineteeth century liberal, understood that the ruling classes institute a constant state of terror for everyone but themselves and random adventurist murder is an ineffective but nevertheless understandable reaction by the terrorized masses?

>>2790367
charlie kirk used his massive wealth and thintank-astroturfed platform to cheer for the genocide of palestinians by israel and whitewashed israel's genocide of palestinians as self defense and lied and said Palestinians "throw gay people off roofs" but i'm supposed to feel sorry he got a hole punched in his neck and passed out before passing on instead of dying screaming like the children israel sets on fire every day. LMFAO fuck liberals

Marxist theories of imperialism do not have a good framework for understanding trade surpluses, trade deficits, capital flows etc

A simplistic analysis of "exporting capital = imperialist" misses the crucial point that exporting capital impoverishes the native working class(who are supposedly imperialist labor aristocrats) and enriches the working class in developing countries (who are supposedly colonized) by building industries and giving jobs.

Just ask any American tech worker if they feel that that a US company exporting it's capital to create jobs in India is "imperialism".

Let's not also forget the huge amount of industrial jobs shipped to China, South Korea, Taiwan and South East Asia over the past few decades. Was this "imperialism" really beneficial for the Western working class who are supposedly labor aristocrats? Was it "colonization and exploitation" for the third world working class who have massively improved their standard of living, even in countries like Nigeria or India?

Marxist analysis of imperialism cannot explain any of these. It is too simplistic and moralistic. If Marx himself had completed his planned Capital Volume on global trade, no doubt he would have given a far more nuanced and correct theory on global trade.

>>2790723
>Marxist theories of imperialism do not have a good framework for understanding trade surpluses, trade deficits, capital flows etc
So you insist.
>A simplistic analysis of "exporting capital = imperialist"
if that were the entirety of the Marxist analysis of imperialism you would be correct, but it's not. Not even close.
>Just ask any American tech worker if they feel that that a US company exporting it's capital to create jobs in India is "imperialism".
>to create jobs
Stop repeating "job creator" propaganda, first of all. Second of all, yes, I am a tech worker, and that is part of imperialism.
>Let's not also forget the huge amount of industrial jobs shipped to China, South Korea, Taiwan and South East Asia over the past few decades.
Yes that is part of imperialism too.
>Was this "imperialism" really beneficial for the Western working class who are supposedly labor aristocrats?
You're either accidentally confusing or deliberately conflating (I can't read your mind so I don't know which) the question of what is imperialism with the separate question of who benefits from imperialism. Also the labor aristocracy is supposed to be a strata of workers, not all workers. Please read the Haitian MaoAnon's effortpost on the difference between Marxism-Leninism-Mao-Zedong-Thought, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, and and Maoism-Third-Worldism please, these are very different ideologies that answer these questions differently: >>2767836

>Was it "colonization and exploitation" for the third world working class who have massively improved their standard of living, even in countries like Nigeria or India?

Another confused question that mixes in a rhetorical defensiveness with possibly smuggled assumptions. Let's read Marx together, shall we?.

Marx distinguishes between a relative increase in standard of living and an absolute increase in standard of living:

<An appreciable rise in wages presupposes a rapid growth of productive capital. Rapid growth of productive capital calls forth just as rapid a growth of wealth, of luxury, of social needs and social pleasures. Therefore, although the pleasures of the labourer have increased, the social gratification which they afford has fallen in comparison with the increased pleasures of the capitalist, which are inaccessible to the worker, in comparison with the stage of development of society in general. Our wants and pleasures have their origin in society; we therefore measure them in relation to society; we do not measure them in relation to the objects which serve for their gratification. Since they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature.

Marx denounces "crude communism" based on "envy" which seeks leveling down the standard of living and a total equality of wages rather than abolition of the wages system:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/epm/3rd.htm
<The crude communist is merely the culmination of this envy and desire to level down on the basis of a preconceived minimum. It has a definite, limited measure. How little this abolition of private property is a true appropriation is shown by the abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilization, and the return to the unnatural simplicity of the poor, unrefined man who has no needs and who has not yet even reached the stage of private property, let along gone beyond it.

<(For crude communism) the community is simply a community of labor and equality of wages, which are paid out by the communal capital, the community as universal capitalist. Both sides of the relation are raised to an unimaginary universality – labor as the condition in which everyone is placed and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community.

Marx points out that "a fair day's wage for a fair day's work" is a conservative motto which does not seek abolition of the wages system:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch03.htm#c14

<[The working class] ought to understand that, with all the miseries it imposes upon them, the present system simultaneously engenders the material conditions and the social forms necessary for an economical reconstruction of society. Instead of the conservative motto: “A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!” they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: “Abolition of the wages system!"

Marx points out what material conditions are necessary to overcome a mode of production:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm

<No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.

>Marxist analysis of imperialism cannot explain any of these.

It has explained all of these repeatedly but you haven't appeared to have read much of it.

>It is too simplistic and moralistic.

You are possibly confusing the angry posts of some random anons who you are defending yourself against with the actual body of theory on the subject matter.

> If Marx himself had completed his planned Capital Volume on global trade, no doubt he would have given a far more nuanced and correct theory on global trade.

Please read Mao Anon's thread and the Marx quotes I provided.

>>2790635
>comparing class war to culture war
Who is the libtard here, again?
I will never celebrate the death of an innocent man.
>>2790641
>He said words I didn't like
Irrelevant. This is why you don't deserve power.
>i'm supposed to feel sorry
You can feel however you want.

>>2786827
Hello, Anon. After reading your recommendation from Dutt (1935), I decided to explore his archive on marxists.org and was pleasantly surprised by the content. Here is my brief review of some of his writing, namely, "Capitalism or Socialism in Britain?" (1931):
https://www.marxists.org/archive/dutt/pamphlets/cap_or_soc.htm

He first emphasises his point on the productive forces:
<All over the world the powers of production have grown too great for the present system of private ownership and class-society. We can produce more foodstuffs, more raw materials, more manufactured goods, than ever before all over the world. But capitalism cannot absorb them; the foodstuffs and raw materials rot and are burnt, the machinery and plant are idle, because there is no social ownership of production, no social use for what is produced. Capitalism can only fight in ever fiercer competition, drive the workers harder for less pay, restrict production, throw increasing numbers into unemployment, build up competing imperialist systems behind tariff walls, and so lead to ever greater destruction and decay, and to the final explosion of war. […] The power of production grows every year; the workers cannot buy; the markets are choked.
After this, he gives statistics of national revenues:
<The War Debt of £7,000 millions draws £350 millions a year to the pockets of the wealthy, or more than the total of the “social services.” […] The total “rentier” capital fixed charges (i.e., debt services, rent and interest) in Britain have been estimated by the leading capitalist economist, Sir Henry Strakosch, at £1,070 millions a year, or 26 per cent. of the estimated national income. Add to this his estimate of profits of capital at £685 millions a year, and we reach a total of £1,755 millions a year or 43 per cent of the national income for the capitalist leeches
We have a macroeconomic sketch here, where annual GDP is around £4,000M: £350M in war debt (9%), £1,070M in rents (26%), £685M in profits (17%), making total surplus extraction (52%<). It should be noted that the British state only paid off the total war debts in 2015! A very rough estimate for GDP in 2025 is 33% wages, 10% profits, 10% rents, with state expenditure making up around 45% of total GDP. So then, surplus extraction in 2025 is around <66% of the economy. Dutt complains of mass unemployment, which is the same today, where 25% of total UK adults (16-64) don't work. So, it seems that much hasn't changed in 95 years!

The tragedy repeats itself as farce, as Dutt shows us!
<This imperialist tribute shows itself in the excess of imports over exports. In 1930, imports to the value of £958 millions were retained in Britain. Exports totalled £570 millions. Thus over two-fifths of imports were not paid for by goods. This is a picture of a decadent centre of an empire in the last stages of decline before the final collapse.
We are similarly in excessive trade deficits today. He is still as yet underestimating as to the rapidity of decline. Indeed, the great conservative Peter Hitchens regards the Great War (1914-18) as the beginning of the end, yet is more aware of the gradual destruction of the Nation. Yet, Dutt is still prophetic of the service economy:
<Coal, iron, steel, engineering, shipbuilding, cotton, wool, railways — all show decreases in the numbers employed. But increases are shown by hotels, restaurants, shops, stores, artificial silk, motor-cars, personal service, commerce, finance.
Of course, Thatcher came to dismantle Attlee's social democracy, including his protection of national industry, forfeited and substituted for "financialisation". Wages are still the highest in European countries with industry.

Dutt then encounters reformists who he regards as "utopians" in the pejorative sense, by misunderstanding the nature of capitalism:
<Many would-be reformers of capitalism (including the Labour Party propagandists and the Independent Labour Party) urge that if only the capitalists would pay higher wages to the workers, enabling them to buy more of what they produce, there would be no crisis. This is utopian nonsense, which ignores the inevitable laws of capitalism — the drive for profits, and the drive of competition.
It is interesting that higher wages were seen to remedy the crisis of overproduction (e.g. "underconsumption") though, which de facto becomes the Keynesian position to "save" capitalism from itself (e.g. "The New Deal"). Dutt is correct however that this is utopian, as seen by Keynes' comments on the future working day (1930):
<Three-hour shifts or a fifteen-hour [work] week…
https://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/archive/keynes_persuasion/Economic_Possibilities_for_our_Grandchildren.htm
Theories from production to consumption can be seen in the motions of the 20th century, from Gesell (1918), to Keynes (1936), to Bataille (1949), to Friedman (1962), to Baudrillard (1972), to Federici (1974). I have previously demonstrated consumption and production in discourse from the mercantilist period, beginning with Potter (1650) and ending with Massie (1750), where it is first reckoned that consumption determines production, and finally, that production determines consumption. Of course, each are right in their own ways.

After this, Dutt defends the USSR as the blueprint for the coming World Socialist Republic, seeing growth as its law of development, rather than decline. Now is not the time for extensive discussion of the Soviet economy, but I will comment on it briefly. Citizens rented homes, with a rate of around 5% of income; the main source of revenue for the state was a sales tax on goods called a "turnover tax" introduced in 1930, which raised 50% of state revenue, beginning at rates between 5-20% (Rousseau suggests a sales tax as the most justified and efficient tax; Smith suggested the same and current advocates against income tax, such as myself, see sales tax as the proposed substitute). Britain introduced a "purchase tax" at a rate of 33% in 1940, and Stalin instituted a sales tax of around 50% around 1936 (taxes on foodstuffs making up 75% of state revenue). Income tax was around 10% in the USSR, with it being 20<% in Britain in 1930. The duration of labour for a soviet worker was also 8 hours a day with a 48-hour work week. Finally, Soviet citizens received free services like Healthcare (30<% of all households in the US have medical dent) and Education (student debt in the UK is around 5% of total GDP). Based on these numbers, the relative wealth of the Soviet Citizen is, if not equal, but greater than that of the westerner, despite the lack of historical development (simply based on redistribution). So then, Dutt is right that the West should have taken the lead from the Communist East to enrich itself. Of course, China is today's economic innovator, and the Satanic West wants to start World War 3 to save itself.

Dutt speaks upon revenues for poor relief:
<It is typical of the present stage of capitalism that less than £40 millions a year for the health of the whole nation, or £50 millions to help to keep barely alive two-and-a-half million unemployed workers
So then, taking earlier figures, we can compute welfare spending to be around 20% of total GDP, which is around what it currently is in the UK (NHS + Benefits). Thus, not much has changed, as I have already written.

Dutt once again speaks prematurely upon his thesis:
<The fascist dictatorship is the final political expression of capitalism in decline, once the parliamentary humbug begins to fail to hold in the workers. […] Fascist dictatorship and war — this is the outlook if we fail to overthrow capitalism. This is the actual alternative to the workers’ revolution.
Looking online, it seems that Dutt is the first person to characterise fascism as "capitalism in decline", and as far as I know, this is his first annunciation of it. 🫨 He elaborates on this particular theory here (1935):
https://www.marxists.org/archive/dutt/articles/1935/question_of_fascism.htm
From this, Dutt also follows after Stalin, characterising reformism as "Social-Fascism". Dutt also predicts the rise of British Fascism, by identifying Oswald Mosley in the Labour Party:
<Similarly, the Mosley group arises from the midst of the Labour Party, and puts forward “new” policies, which are equally a repetition of capitalist policies.
The BUF was founded a year after Dutt wrote this!

Dutt adds this political formalism:
<At present the capitalist class rules, whatever the form of government. Whether a monarchy or a republic, whether a parliamentary system or a fascist tyranny is maintained as the most convenient form, whether the ministry consists of Conservatives, Liberals or self-styled “socialists” — the rule of the capitalist class goes on in fact. 
Here I would have to disagree, since if we take the classical understanding, capitalism (e.g. the rule of capitalists) is an oligarchy, and thus limited in its form of government. The form of government is then limited by the class which rules it (which equally accords to the distribution of property). It is impossible to have a capitalist democracy, for example (since as Marx writes, capitalism erodes private property). That's my polemic.

He concludes with the proclomations of the Communist revolution in Britain, being the policies of: (i) a 7-6 hour working day, (ii) free healthcare, (iii) universal public education, (iv) the approptiation of wealthy properties to settle the poor, (v) the freedom of the colonies. After the 1945 victory of Labour PM Clement Attlee (1945-51), two of these conditions were met; the NHS and decolonisation. The rest have only been partially achieved, if at all. I recently looked at housing figures, and while there are approximately 1,000,000 abandoned homes in the UK, there are 350,000 homeless. On homes, I will further relate Russian statistics. After privatisation in the 90s, the transfer of property was largely frictionless, and today, home ownership in Russia is around 92% due to its Communist legacy. In the UK, Thatcher's "Right to Buy" scheme raised home ownership from 55% to 64%, with peaking figures at 70% at the new milennium, which has also declined since. Median real House prices are also inflated to ~300% since 1980, meaning that house prices are approx. 900% of annual gross median income, or 1,000% net income, so it would take a frugal person to save for 15-20 years to buy an average house without a mortgage. With a mortgage, he has to pay out for 25 years, with interest. This is also presupposing one even makes a median income, with no outstanding debts like student loans. So then, if you had a home, you would save 25-30 years off of your life. Trump in this term has promoted the idea of a 50-year mortgage for some people. If you begin paying at 21, you will only finish when you are 71.

All in all, I would recommend this work in basic reading lists for communist literature, since it is so concise and relevant to today's situation.

As an appendix, I will share his text on Palestine (1947):
<This conference of representatives of Communist Parties in the countries of the British Empire extends its warmest greetings and pledges its full support to all the people of Palestine who are struggling for national liberation against the military, political and economic domination of British imperialism, and the economic penetration and strategic plans of American imperialism. […] We warn all Jewish people that Zionism, which seeks to make Palestine or part of Palestine a Jewish state as an ally of the imperialist powers and their base in the Middle East, diverts Jewish people from the real solution of the problem of anti-Semitism, which is along the lines of democratic development and full equality of rights within the countries where they live. It is in the interests of Palestine Jewry to oppose the Zionist conception which seeks to put them in the position of being an instrument of imperialism in the Middle East, in opposition to the struggle for national liberation in Palestine, in opposition to the progressive forces in the democratic countries in Europe, and against the Soviet Union. […] But not only has Anglo-American imperialism used Zionism in pursuit of its policy of divide and rule; it also seeks to secure the support of reactionary Arab elements to strengthen the Middle East as a base for operations against the Soviet Union and against the liberation movement of the masses throughout the Middle East. We have to warn the Arab people against those Arab reactionary elements who are ready to betray the movement for national liberation, upon securing the support of imperialism for their sectional interests against the interests of the masses.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/dutt/1947/03/palestine.htm
This is absolutely brilliant, since it predicts both, Zionist terror (e.g. the 1948 Palestine War) and Islamic terror, as a result of American and British imperial opportunism! 🤯

>>2790847
>anon celebrates the death of charlie kirk says words you didn't like
<how dare you sir! this is a breach of my civility fetish! i will never celebrate the death of a innocent bourgeois propagandist!
>charlie kirk celebrates the death of thousands of palestinians
<wow am i supposed to be moved by this? he said words you didn't like? so what?
….. hmmm……… indeed………..

>>2790849
Good effort post

>>2790849
>Theories from production to consumption can be seen in the motions of the 20th century, from Gesell (1918), to Keynes (1936), to Bataille (1949), to Friedman (1962), to Baudrillard (1972), to Federici (1974). I have previously demonstrated consumption and production in discourse from the mercantilist period, beginning with Potter (1650) and ending with Massie (1750), where it is first reckoned that consumption determines production, and finally, that production determines consumption. Of course, each are right in their own ways.

>After this, Dutt defends the USSR as the blueprint for the coming World Socialist Republic, seeing growth as its law of development, rather than decline. Now is not the time for extensive discussion of the Soviet economy, but I will comment on it briefly. Citizens rented homes, with a rate of around 5% of income; the main source of revenue for the state was a sales tax on goods called a "turnover tax" introduced in 1930, which raised 50% of state revenue, beginning at rates between 5-20% (Rousseau suggests a sales tax as the most justified and efficient tax; Smith suggested the same and current advocates against income tax, such as myself, see sales tax as the proposed substitute). Britain introduced a "purchase tax" at a rate of 33% in 1940, and Stalin instituted a sales tax of around 50% around 1936 (taxes on foodstuffs making up 75% of state revenue). Income tax was around 10% in the USSR, with it being 20<% in Britain in 1930. The duration of labour for a soviet worker was also 8 hours a day with a 48-hour work week. Finally, Soviet citizens received free services like Healthcare (30<% of all households in the US have medical dent) and Education (student debt in the UK is around 5% of total GDP). Based on these numbers, the relative wealth of the Soviet Citizen is, if not equal, but greater than that of the westerner, despite the lack of historical development (simply based on redistribution). So then, Dutt is right that the West should have taken the lead from the Communist East to enrich itself. Of course, China is today's economic innovator, and the Satanic West wants to start World War 3 to save itself.
You're built different, I'll give you that. You'll write banger truth nuke paragraphs like this while at the same time posting smug cringe like this: >>2790847
correct me if two different anons posted those

>>2790849
>This is absolutely brilliant, since it predicts both, Zionist terror (e.g. the 1948 Palestine War) and Islamic terror, as a result of American and British imperial opportunism!
That's nothing, Lenin denounced Zionism as before he died in 1924:

>To call a fight for the Zionist idea of a Jewish nation, for the federal principle of Party organisation, a “fight for the equality of the Jews in the world family of the proletariat” is to degrade the struggle from the plane of ideas and principles to that of suspicion, incitement and fanning of historically-evolved prejudices. It glaringly reveals a lack of real ideas and principles as weapons of struggle.
<Collected Works, Vol. 7, pp. 92–103.

It is very easy to predict that any given form of ethnonationalism is not merely ripe for reactionary politics, but is in fact a form of reactionary politics.

>>2790928
I would say that what struck me with Dutt is the prophecy of Arab reaction at the behest of the UK and US. It was the anglos who promoted Islamism in the 20th century to fight communism, and this has been used as a precept for 21st century imperialism ever since (beginning with 9/11, an inside job). The US and Israel partnered with ISIS; they funded the Libyan "rebels", and so on. Terrorism is the most conservative act, which is why I criticise Baudrillard's sophistic appeal to it in "The Spirit of Terrorism" (2002), where he claims that Terrorism is anti-capitalist, but I diagree. The Bolsheviks were marvellous on this question, such as Lenin and Trotsky, who repeatedly spoke against individual acts of political violence. Bombings were more of an anarchist thing, and later, the lone gunman killing innocents on domestic soil become an American phenomenon since the time of Whitman (White-Man) in the 1950s. It became a reactionary aesthetic with Manson, Kaczynski, The Turner Diaries, Columbine, McVeigh, etc.
>>2790874
I never said Charlie Kirk was justified, either.
You can be an asshole and still be undeserving of death.
>>2790911
>You'll write banger truth nuke paragraphs like this while at the same time posting smug cringe like this
Such is the duality of man… Based, and cringe.

Here is a transcription of W.F. Lloyd's "The Notion of Value" (1833), a short lecture which is one of the earliest expositions of an elementary theory of marginal utility.

Here I have edited and compiled a collection of Early Modern Economic Literature from the 16th and 17th century (1500 - 1690), which majorly comprises the "mercantilist" period of Political Economy, before the Liberal period afterwards in the 18th century - preceded by Boisguilbert in his "Le Detail" (1695), and for which my translation can be found here: >>2753236

This compendium is directly sequential of my earlier compilation of Ancient and Medieval Literature (400 BCE - 1400 CE), republished.

In this current volume is the included literature:

• Nicolaus Copernicus - Monetae Cudendae Ratio (1526)
  
• Antoine Montchretien - "Treatise" (1615)
  
• Thomas Mun - "England's Treasure" (1641)
  
• Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan, Ch. X, Sct. II (1651)
  
• William Petty - Treatise of Taxes (1662)
  
• Josiah Child - Brief Observations (1668)
  
• William Petty - Political Anatomy, Ch. IX-XI (1672)
  
• William Petty - Political Arithmetick (1677)
  
• Philipp von Hornick - Austria Over All (1684)
  
• Nicholas Barbon - A Discourse on Trade (1690)
  
• John Locke - Second Treatise, Ch. V (1690)
  
• John Locke - "Some Considerations" (1690)

>>2791285
>>2777546
> It was the anglos who promoted Islamism in the 20th century to fight communism
And in the 18th to fight the Ottomans

>>2787354
>I am a true believer in public reason; Charlie Kirk did not deserve to die, and I would never celebrate such tyranny. So then, once you encounter the limits of a totalitarian's reason, you will discover the filibuster; the impasse, the mocking, etc. That is when ghastly unreason secures the victory of your soul and truth is present to all reason. Even if they kill your body, they cannot kill your soul.

the reactionary propagandist is like a person who yells fire in a crowded theater for a living, causing many to die by crushing injuries even though there was no real threat. their particular way of using "free speech" is itself a form of tyranny and society is justified in self defense against such reactionary figures. that is the nature of hate speech and reactionary propaganda. it leads to and justifies the violence of the ruling class against the working class and other marginalized masses.

>>2791930
>Hate speech
You are allowed to hate people, in speech.
And the incitement to violence is already prohibited by law.
>Causes many to die
So Charlie Kirk was a murderer? Who did he kill?
You commies are ridiculous. 🙄

>>2792041
Idk man, how many did Goebbels kill?

>>2792059
>Idk man
Clearly.

>>2792041
>So Charlie Kirk was a murderer? Who did he kill?
it's more subtle than the question of whether or not he directly literally killed anyone in an obvious way that a bourgeois court of bourgeois law would recognize. Liberals are unable to imagine collective responsibility. This is why Engels had to explain social murder to you slowly.

>>2792063
>Social murder
So once again, culture war is compared to class war.
How many unnatural deaths of proles did Charlie cause?
>Bourgeois law
As opposed to the ancient law of the polis, where Socrates was tried for blasphemy? You are a superstitious zealot, terrified of words. But do tell me how the curse words caused the grain to not grow this year.

>>2792067
>You are a superstitious zealot, terrified of words.

An enormous man dressed in an oilcloth slicker had entered the tent and removed his hat. He was bald as a stone and he had no trace of beard and he had no brows to his eyes nor lashes to them. He was close on to seven feet in height and he stood smoking a cigar even in this nomadic house of God and he seemed to have removed his hat only to chase the rain from it for now he put it on again.

The reverend had stopped his sermon altogether. There was no sound in the tent. All watched the man. He adjusted the hat and then pushed his way forward as far as the crateboard pulpit where the reverend stood and there he turned to address the reverend's congregation. His face was serene and strangely childlike. His hands were small. He held them out.

>Ladies and gentlemen I feel it my duty to inform you that the man holding this revival is an imposter. He holds no papers of divinity from any institution recognized or improvised. He is altogether devoid of the least qualification to the office he has usurped and has only committed to memory a few passages from the good book for the purpose of lending to his fraudulent sermons some faint flavor of the piety he despises. In truth, the gentleman standing here before you posing as a minister of the Lord is not only totally illiterate but is also wanted by the law in the states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Arkansas….

<Oh God, cried the reverend. Lies, lies!

He began reading feverishly from his opened bible.

>…On a variety of charges the most recent of which involved a girl of eleven years! I said eleven! Who had come to him in trust and whom he was surprised in the act of violating while actually clothed in the livery of his God.

A moan swept through the crowd. A lady sank to her knees.

<This is him,

cried the reverend, sobbing.

<This is him. The devil. Here he stands.

<Let's hang the turd,

called an ugly thug from the gallery to the rear.

>Not three weeks before this he was run out of Fort Smith Arkansas for having congress with a goat. Yes lady, that is what I said. Goat.

<Why damn my eyes if I wont shoot the son of a bitch,

said a man rising at the far side of the tent, and drawing a pistol from his boot he leveled it and fired.

The young teamster instantly produced a knife from his clothing and unseamed the tent and stepped outside into the rain. The kid followed. They ducked low and ran across the mud toward the hotel. Already gunfire was general within the tent and a dozen exits had been hacked through the canvas walls and people were pouring out, women screaming, folk stumbling, folk trampled underfoot in the mud. The kid and his friend reached the hotel gallery and wiped the water from their eyes and turned to watch. As they did so the tent began to sway and buckle and like a huge and wounded medusa it slowly settled to the ground trailing tattered canvas walls and ratty guyropes over the ground.

The baldheaded man was already at the bar when they entered.

On the polished wood before him were two hats and a double handful of coins. He raised his glass but not to them. They stood up to the bar and ordered whiskeys and

the kid laid his money down but the barman pushed it back with his thumb and nodded.

<These here is on the judge,

he said.

They drank. The teamster set his glass down and looked at the kid or he seemed to, you couldnt be sure of his gaze. The kid looked down the bar to where the judge stood. The bar was that tall not every man could even get his elbows up on it but it came just to the judge's waist and he stood with his hands placed flatwise on the wood, leaning slightly, as if about to give another address. By now men were piling through the doorway, bleeding, covered in mud, cursing. They gathered about the judge. A posse was being drawn to pursue the preacher.

<Judge, how did you come to have the goods on that no-account?

>Goods?

said the judge.

<When was you in Fort Smith?

>Fort Smith?

<Where did you know him to know all that stuff on him?

>You mean the Reverend Green?

<Yessir. I reckon you was in Fort Smith fore ye come out here.

>I was never in Fort Smith in my life. Doubt that he was.

They looked from one to the other.

<Well where was it you run up on him?

>I never laid eyes on the man before today. Never even heard of him.

He raised his glass and drank.

There was a strange silence in the room. The men looked like mud effigies. Finally someone began to laugh. Then another. Soon they were all laughing together. Someone bought the judge a drink.

Was The Judge guilty of anything? Or was he just exercising his right to free speech?

>>2792072
>Guilt
Yes, dishonesty can be prosecuted under: (i) false allegation or (ii) perjury. Accusing someone of a crime requires evidence. You can also be sued for false claims about another person.

>>2792076
now imagine if you lived in a society where stirring up lynch mobs wasn't illegal if you were a rich person funded by conservative think tanks and you were careful enough to be subtle in your hate speech. congratulations. that was charlie kirk's job. and I'm glad he's dead just like he was glad palestinians are dead. If that makes me a "tyrant" so be it.

>>2792076
>Carolyn Bryant testified in 1955 that 14-year-old Emmett Till grabbed her and verbally threatened her three days before her husband and brother-in-law abducted and tortured the teenager to death. Five decades later, according to a new book, she confessed to a Duke University historian, “That part’s not true.”
Why didn't she get in any trouble?
Was she not guilty of anything?

>>2792078
>Lynch mobs
What lynch mobs?
>If that makes me a "tyrant" so be it.
Okay, so own it. You are an enemy of liberty.
>>2792079
>Why didn't she get in any trouble?
Corruption, presumably.
>>2792081
>Kill millions with words
Words don't kill people. This is superstitious rhetoric.

>>2792084
Was she not guilty of anything? Notice you didn't answer that.

it would be so simple to admit that carolyn bryant got emmett till killed with her words, because she knew her false allegations would mobilize violent people. and it would even be simple to admit that she didn't get into any trouble, nor did her husband, because the system is designed to protect her. it would be so simple to extend this logic to people like charlie kirk, and realize that these people are valid targets for revolutionary violence because they are part of the system where the strong killing the weak is legal, but the weak killing the strong is "tyranny"

>>2792086
Yes, she was guilty.
>>2792087
What lynch mobs did Charlie Kirk inspire?
Still waiting to read the list of his crimes.

>>2792095
>Yes, she was guilty.
So you admit to the general principle that speech is not just this politically neutral thing. now apply that to everyone.
>>2792095
>What lynch mobs did Charlie Kirk inspire?
>Still waiting to read the list of his crimes.
nice new goalpost, you confused the example with the specifics. it doesn't matter if charlie kirk did not have a lynch mob lined up in front of him like organized ranks and directly commanded them to go forth and lynch, his entire career had that same effect, just in a much more subtle, plausibly-deniable way. Once you understand what these think tank funded reactionaries exist to do, and how no amount of debating them on their own terms works, you'll realize why Communists don't get morally outraged at violence against them, but merely critique it on strategic grounds.

>>2792357
>speech is not just this politically neutral thing
Crimes are universal of civic law, not political conditions.
Politicising law is totalitarianism, since it reduces the difference between oikos and polis, when the two are properly separated.
>it doesn't matter if charlie kirk did not have a lynch mob
So after the spiel of lynchings and murder, it turns out that the real problem is his offensive language after all. It "doesn't matter" whether or not there's physical harm or not, I guess.
>his entire career had that same effect
How many people died as a result of Charlie Kirk? Give a number.
>you'll realize why Communists don't get morally outraged at violence against them
It's because you're totalitarians, just like Fascists. You don't actually care about real-world harm, since you would excuse real-world harm against your political opponents. So you're a Schmittian; a hypocrite.

>>2792375
>you would excuse real-world harm against your political opponents
Laughable considering the state of the world

>>2792381
There are people who deserve to be boiled alive, and it isn't Charlie Kirk. Focus on class war, not culture war, to retain your sanity.

>>2792383
>class war, not culture war
Completely reveals your ignorance on anything besides economic pedagogy

>>2792383
Charlie Kirk was a bourgeois multimillionaire receiving funding from think tanks specifically for the purposes of fomenting false consciousness, imperialist nationalism, and bigotry though. So laughing at his dead is "just words": Literally the same thing you claim he "merely" did, only without all the funding and power behind it. Yet you clearly, CLEARLY find the latter much more "concerning" than the former.

>>2792387
>>2792384
How many people did Charlie Kirk murder?

>>2792389
He is accessory to murder of millions. Every person directly killed by american state, american private enterprises, every social murder in the country and in countries within US hegemony.

>>2792389
thousands of palestinians

>>2792397
Okay, so let's contrive this logic.
If you pay taxes, you fund the US military, so does that make you share in the guilt of those same murders? If so, why don't all US citizens deserve to die?

>>2792399
read: >>2792400

>>2792400
Taxed are generally not payed voluntarily, and the way they are spend is not decided by common proles.

>>2792406
What do you mean?
You don't strictly have to pay taxes, and the people vote on who they want to lead their nation every election. So then, all atrocities are caused by the mass of people who perpetuate the conditions, and who also have the power to stop it. This is a standard socialist understanding. So then, if we can trace the cause of all horror back to the complacency of the masses, why are they not responsible?

>>2792410
retard

>>2792410
>You don't strictly have to pay taxes
If you're either a billionnaire with an army of lawyers or an hobbo with literally nothing to tax, maybe. If you can pull that shit without being either one of the other teach us senpai.

>the people vote on who they want to lead their nation every election
lmao

>>2792416
If the people have no agency, how can they revolt?
If they are slaves, let them be mastered.
>>2792414
Let's go further; the US President does nothing except give suggestion to other people in the US government by influence; there is no need to follow the orders. Further, Congress can usurp the power of the president by Impeachment, and so if there is a bad president, why does the legislature not receive blame, instead of the executive, who is only licensed by the other branches of government? So then, as it is attributed to Karl Stojka:
<It was not Hitler or Himmler who abducted me, beat me, and shot my family. It was the shoemaker, the milk man, the neighbor, who received a uniform and then believed they were the master race

After this nominalism, we see the truth, that power is effected by the strength of influence and weakness of will, with each being relative to one another. All evil is then the result of the weakness to resist it. Thus, if we return to the example of bearing false witness, violence is not caused by words, but by those who are influenced by words. What then designates guilt in the speaker? It is an important question. Why is Hitler made more guilty than someone "just following orders"? Is Hitler superhuman and the soldier subhuman? Let's meditate on this.

>>2792426
ChatGPT response out of ten

>>2792473


Marxgpt

>>2792389
did you even read the post you are replying to? you're ignoring it and trying to recenter the conversation on the fake question. he killed nobody directly, but the great thing about bourgeois propagandists is they kill people indirectly, through the machinery they set in motion, with the bonus of plausible deniability and distance through abstraction. when the abu ghraib torture scandal happened, it was the people who did the torture and murder directly who were punished, but never those who gave the order, and never the media who spent years fomenting the hatred of of all muslims and the conflation of muslims with "terrorists" which made the scandal possible.

>>2792400
>If you pay taxes, you fund the US military, so does that make you share in the guilt of those same murders?
Yes I do, and yes I share in the guilt.
>If so, why don't all US citizens deserve to die?
I already accept that if anything ever happens to me, even if I am killed, it will not be 1/10000000000th of what the people my government terrorizes suffer. So I am able to accept that reality.

>>2792426
>All evil is then the result of the weakness to resist it. Thus, if we return to the example of bearing false witness, violence is not caused by words, but by those who are influenced by words.
If you really believed words were so powerless you wouldn't talk so much.

>>2792520
>he killed nobody directly, but the great thing about bourgeois propagandists is they kill people indirectly
So how many people did Charlie Kirk kill indirectly?
How many people have we all killed by indirect margins?
>when the abu ghraib torture scandal happened, it was the people who did the torture and murder directly who were punished, but never those who gave the order, and never the media who spent years fomenting the hatred of of all muslims
Why not go back to the beginning? All sin entered the world when Adam and Eve ate from the Fruit, or when Pandora opened the Box. But this is relevant to what I was writing; where does responsibility begin and end? You are talking about flimsy abstractions like "the media". Who is "the media"? News writers? News anchors? Who are we putting in the gulag, exactly? You are getting lost in the sequence of causation, as though describing how the flap of a butterfly's wings contributes to a hurricane. But as I say, lets go with it - why are you not sharing in the collective guilt? Why are we not all responsible?
>>2792522
At least you are consistent.
>>2792523
Words matter to those who have reason to understand them.

>metaphysical debate around a fetishized notion of power and symbolic meaning
Nietzsche fanboys everyone

>>2789563
>which is unfortunately obscured by Marx, who imposes "labour" as the medium between the equality of goods
this is because labour is the physical limit of supply concretized in material reality rather than an abstract idealized supply that spontaneously comes from nowhere