[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)
Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord
ReturnCatalogBottom

File: 1622232000073.jpeg ( 19.03 KB , 474x314 , 4353454.jpeg )

 No.285223[View All]

Hello /leftypol/, we noticed an under-appreciation for the theory that upholds our political ideologies: As such, we have decided to revive the reading sticky! This thread will be dedicated to the sharing, discussing, and general banter about various leftist thinkers, theories, and political outlooks.

But, other than that, we believe there are other important reads that must be addressed, especially, for beginners and those just now getting into leftism.

Don't forget to check out >>>/edu/ for more reading and discussion!

———————
Common Right Wing Talking Points Debunks
——————–

Check out the /edu/ thread at
https://leftychan.net/edu/res/5576.html

Also see the relevant leftybooru tag
https://lefty.pictures/post/list/debunk/1
Add topics into the tag list to further narrow down your search!


———————
Introduction to Marxism Reading List - Thanks to the /read/ matrix room (https://app.element.io/#/group/+leftyread:matrix.org)
——————–

Absolute Beginners Tier:

'Principles of Communism' by Friedrich Engels
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

'Three Source and Theree Component Parts of Marxism' by V.I. Lenin
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm

Not a book but Halim Alrah's youtube channel is good for the absolutely basics of Marxism but obviously not a replacement for reading
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGog4JPn5-W3_XIKccENysg

——————–
Marx and Engles Reading List
——————–

Tier 1:

'Manifesto of the Communist Party'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm

'Critique of the Gotha Programme'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/

'Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm

Tier 2:

'Wage Labour and Capital'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/

'Value, Price and Profit'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/

'Theses on Feuerback'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm

By this point you should have a good understanding of the basics of Marxism and are ready to branch out to other theorists and also read Capital.

Tier 3:

'Capital vol.1'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

——————–
Lenin Reading List - By Moo (aka Zizekposter)
——————–

Lenin Essentials:

'State and Revolution'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/

'“Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/

'Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

Petit Bourgeois Philistine Tier:

'What is to be done'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/

'The Proletarian Revolution and Renegade Kautsky'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/

'Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/index.htm

ADHD Tier:

'Socialism and Religion'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm

'Zizek's Introduction to Revolution at the Gates'
https://kabirabud.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/slavoj_zizek_repeating_leninbookfi-org.pdf

'Revolutionary Adventurism'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/sep/01.htm

——————–
MLM Reading List
——————–

Essentials:

Why MLM?
https://why-mlm.medium.com/why-mlm-af48aba14f8a

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism Basic Course
https://foreignlanguages.press/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/S01-MLM-Basic-Course-Revised-Edition-10th-Printing.pdf

'Continuity and Rupture: Philosophy in the Maoist Terrain'
https://libgen.lc/get.php?md5=a00646f118a3427ec19263021b3e84e1&key=06Q5Q1W5DFK8YOHU&mirr=1

Mao:

'On Practice & Contradiction'
https://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_16.htm
https://foreignlanguages.press/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/N04-On-Contradiction-Study-2nd.pdf

'On Guerrilla Warfare'
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1937/guerrilla-warfare/index.htm

'On Protracted War'
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_09.htm

China:

'Fanshen: A Documentary of Revolution in a Chinese Village'
http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=00F5750256E291B678E2A0039D3CF54E

'Red Star Over China' - Edgar Snow
http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=BD54E7C5F9CDE90E30BD0CB5E91F0049

'The Unknown Cultural Revolution' - Dongpin Han
http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=2495C43CFA7395ACA45CA812A304A701

Peru:

Interview With Chairman Gonzalo
https://the-red-flag.org/en/central-committee-of-the-communist-party-of-peru-interview-with-chairman-gonzalo/

General line of the PCP
https://gplpcp.wordpress.com/

'Shining Path: Terror and Revolution in Peru' - Simon Strong
http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=4FB5D349F9D3250453C5F0525F5890DD

India:

Operation “Green Hunt” in India
https://foreignlanguages.press/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/N08-Operation-Green-Hunt.pdf

Eight Historic Documents (AZAD)
https://foreignlanguages.press/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/S18-Historic-Eight-Documents.pdf

'Urban Perspective'
https://foreignlanguages.press/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/S14-Urban-Perspective-4th-Printing.pdf

Philippines:

Araling Aktibista - Activist Study ARAK
https://foreignlanguages.press/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/S22-Activist-Study-ARAK-2nd-Printing.pdf

'Stand for Socialism Against Modern Revisionism'
https://foreignlanguages.press/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/S07-Stand-for-Socialism-3rd-Printing.pdf

'Philippine Society and Revolution'
https://bannedthought.net/Philippines/CPP/1970s PhilippineSocietyAndRevolution-4ed.pdf

Political Economy:

'Rethinking Socialism' – Deng-yuan Hsu & Pao-yu Ching
https://foreignlanguages.press/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/S11-Rethinking-Socialism-4th-Printing.pdf

'China: A Modern Social-Imperialist Power' - CPI(Maoist)
http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=F68AC84D480D41A222818D802F3AF7CA
or
https://library.bz/uploads/main/c0105702c9219cf136bdae79008daaa4.epub
or
https://why-mlm.medium.com/china-a-modern-social-imperialist-power-d5ac7a9455f7

'Maoist Economics & the Revolutionary Road to Communism' - The Shanghai Textbook
http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=8B44F61D828997487E2FDE607FCF2FEB

——————–
Leftcom Reading Lists
——————–

r/marxism101's reading list:
https://i.imgur.com/s70UUPQ.jpg

r/bruhinternational's reading list:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bruhinternational/comments/m53hon/official_rbruhinternational_reading_list/

Bordiga:

'The Democratic Principle'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm

'Proletarian Dictatorship and Class Party'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/class-party.htm

'The Spirit of Horsepower'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1953/horsepower.htm

'Report on Fascism'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/bordiga02.htm

'Activism'
https://libcom.org/library/activism-amadeo-bordiga

'The Lyons Theses'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1926/lyons-theses.htm

'Theory and Action in Marxist Doctrine'
https://libcom.org/library/theory-action-marxist-doctrine-amadeo-bordiga

'Dialogue with Stalin'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1952/stalin.htm

Pannekoek:

'World Revolution and Communist Tactics'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1920/communist-tactics.htm

'Party and Class'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/party-class.htm

Herman Gorter:

'Open Letter to Comrade Lenin'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter.htm

'The World Revolution'
https://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1918/world-revolution.htm

——————–
Bookchin Reading Lists - based off of posts by Gorm1918 (pbuh)
——————–

'The Next Revolution'
https://libcom.org/files/Murray%20Bookchin-The%20Next%20Revolution.%20Popular%20Assemblies%20and%20the%20Promise%20of%20Direct%20Democracy-Verso%20(2015).pdf

'Urbanization Without Cities'
http://188.165.199.119/files/Urbanization_Without_Cities_-_Ebook.pdf

'The 3rd Revolution'
https://libcom.org/library/third-revolution-popular-movements-revolutionary-era

'The Ecology of Freedom'
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-the-ecology-of-freedom

——————–
Links to Resources and Libraries:
——————–

More Marx and Engels:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/sw/index.htm

Lenin:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/

Other Selected Marxists:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/selected-marxists.htm

Classical Works Recommended To High-Ranking Cadres:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_56.htm

Many important books can be found on libgen:
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/

Libcom has some good books/documents:
https://libcom.org/library

Other links:
https://archive.is/L8uFD

Various assortment of historical and biographical works:
https://archive.org/search.php?query=uploader%3A%22kocotosi%40gmail.com%22&sort=-publicdate

The Leftist Bookshelf (4.16 GB, 600+ files)
https://mega.nz/#F!QUFQSBja!hPbmmLolJBGwSQ848nncnw
This was originally a torrent but I can't find the link anymore. Its description was: "640 eBooks, mostly in PDF format (a bunch are CHM, DJVU or ePUB), from a revolutionary Leftist viewpoint. The main subjects are politics and philosophy, history, economics, and much much more."

Political Theory (MLM) (2.64 GB, 550+ files)
https://mega.nz/#F!4M1FnTgI!CdM8WWjpBC_UHGCJk9AHzA
I found this on reddit years ago (circa 2016) Don't really remember who made it or where it came from, but this is a reading course (politics, philosophy, economics, etc) focused on Maoism. Has many books and articles on the USSR, PRC, Stalin, Mao, etc.

The Anarchist Library (669 MB, 4000+ files)
https://mega.nz/#F!gRFkQCLY!5gUkmaubpp_P_yKLZiBJ9Q
This is a complete mirror of the anarchist library with pdfs and epubs

Little Bunker of Marxism-Leninism (680 MB, 100+ files)
https://mega.nz/#F!0QtCiI7L!MJZJk-SdjyBuBZOuNJuOPQ
Unfinished project focused on M-L with more than 100 books on several topics like history, economics, politics, etc. Lots of stuff on the USSR.

Historical Materialism series (330 MB, 100+ files)
https://mega.nz/#F!9IkymYBZ!B8vB2yDP0Qv_-DPS2ro-HA
A pdf archive of over 100 books from the Historical Materialism book series. I got this from thecharnelhouse.org years ago and the website had released many marxist books from other publishers but unfortunately it's been taken down.

/leftypol/ with a slash of liberty (239 MB, 100+ files)
https://mega.nz/#F!sFMQXJ6J!JboByVCZScC6Jq2YXE0Exw
I didn't make this, just reuploading it. This is a classic /leftypol/ link, marxist stuff mixed with anarchism.

Marx & Engels Collected Works (900+ MB, 50 files)
https://mega.nz/#F!BJEmkQiZ!vylIbCWFrqIeYaLiuN2szg
The official, complete works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels organized in 50 volumes and 3 categories.
330 posts and 102 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.474915

>>474908
theres probably more gay christians than gay communists
>>

 No.474938

>>473099
Fundamentals of Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism, DPRK: Seven Decades of Creation and Changes, On Nationalism, Complete Exposition of the Principles of the Juche Idea are all great reads relating to the DPRK
Also if you want good documentaries Pyongyang Today, My Brothers and Sisters in the North are good starters
Some links
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLegd4KP36a0Y775Xl_HI_tvDKB6qoxPrx
https://bannedthought.net/Korea-DPRK/index.htm
>>

 No.479349

Techno-Capitalism reading list:
Shoshana Zuboff - The age of surveillance capitalism http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=88F4E36A731B1594144F40497AF25C34
Brett Scott - Cloudmoney http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=D8D28B8D622C939973A87B16A5C4EAE6
Yanis Varoufakis - Techno-Feudalism http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=0BA99CA5241D520DCF86C93DF0FFB7C9
Edward Snowden - Permanent Record http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=A5BDA164BB2B8419C57E57012A2F7F82
>>

 No.480742

>>479349
>>

 No.480748

>>480742
interesting docu thx for posting it
>>

 No.482555

File: 1719706747006.jpg ( 183.16 KB , 721x855 , 20240625_211355.jpg )

Any good historical books about how Communists obtained power in the past? I got John Reed's Ten Days just recently on a whim, but he doesn't really go over how the Soviets formed. I want to know more about how soviets and such were built up from nothing, to perhaps draw parallels with how power can be obtained today
>>

 No.482557

>>482555
Does Trotsky cover it at all in his History of the Russian Revolution?
>>

 No.482772

I swear to god it says:
>The new value actually created in the process, the value produced, or the value-product, is therefore not the same as the value of the product;
On page 181 of Capital Volume 1, by Karl Marx

Leftism is retarded because our books are unreadable.
>>

 No.482773

>>482772
>Leftism is retarded because our books are unreadable.
They're unreadable on purpose. The author is gaslighting you into thinking you are too stupid to understand the profound insights of the text. So everybody pretends they understand it to avoid looking stupid infront of their peers.
>>

 No.482774

>>482772
There is value in the machines for producing products, some of that value rubs off. Meaning that some value is transferred from the machine to the product.

Therefore the value of the finished product is the value that was added during production by labor, plus the rubb-off-value the product gets from the machine.

The workers that produce the machines indirectly add value to the products that are produced with the machines. Other workers using the machines to produce stuff add some extra value to it later.

It's part of marx's argument for why capital does not generate value by it self.

In modern economic speak, you'd say
<the manufacturing value-add is not the same as the nominal market-value.
Which in my humble opinion is even more obtuse.

>>482773
>They're unreadable on purpose.
No Marx wrote in the 1800s, his stuff was comprehensible to normal people of that era.
His style is harder to read with modern sensibilities, but it's still better than anything in mainstream economics.

>So everybody pretends they understand
This is not hard to understand, value is added to products in multiple steps, therefore the value added in one step is not the total value of the product. I grant you that it could be worded a lot better.
>>

 No.482775

>>482774
>This is not hard to understand, value is added to products in multiple steps, therefore the value added in one step is not the total value of the product.
Writing it out clearly like this just exposes the bullshit. Because "value" is not a property of the product itself. That's why you pay $200 for a futanari my little pony doll and I would throw it in the trash. The doll doesn't magically change value between the time you see it and I see it. The "value" was never a property of the doll in the first place.
>>

 No.482780

>>482775
The Value theory you are trying to promote is called subjective value theory and it doesn't agree with reality.

Also you have an odd taste, Pony dolls ?
>>

 No.482781

>>482780
>it doesn't agree with reality.
You forgot to make an argument. Just saying it doesn't make it true.

Value is not created by labor value is assigned by individuals. This is proved by the fact that different people buy different things. And different people bid different amounts on the same thing at auctions. A bottle of water is worth $1 in the store and $1,000,000 in the desert. A gamergirl can sell her bathwater for hundreds of dollars and it required zero labor to create. If you own a car and move to new york where parking is very expensive you might pay somebody to take it off your hands. Do I need to go on?
>>

 No.482783

>>482781
You're a retard if you don't agree with the labour theory of value, I don't know what else to say. Educate yourself or fuck off.
>>

 No.482784

>>482773
Lol

>>482774
Thanks. It's eventually possible to understand what is meant if you re-read it a bunch of times but fuck Marx for writing like that, seriously it's going to take forever to finish this book.
>>

 No.482785

>>482783
>You're a retard if you don't agree with the labour theory of value, I don't know what else to say. Educate yourself or fuck off.
Literally zero argument. Not even an attempt. I haven't pwned someone this hard in a while.
>>

 No.482786

>>482781
>You forgot to make an argument.
Fair enough, i guess. Labor theory of value does agree with the economic data. While the other value theories don't. But it's fair to ask for a more elaborate explanation.

>Value is not created by labor value is assigned by individuals.
This is easy to counter, money buys labor power, it's the only thing it buys. All the things you buy, all that money eventually ends up in somebodies hands to make them do stuff. Like if you buy bread, eventually that money goes to a farmer who works the fields. And that's where it stops, the farmer doesn't put money into the ground in return for holding on to the plants and catching the rain. So it's labor all the way down. If there's no slavery in the system, everything that gets produced accumulates production costs as it has to buy labor-power in each step along the production chain. On top of that comes profits for the capitalists. (Slavery is very inefficient at allocating labor-power that's why economies based on wage-labor vastly out-compete slave economies)

The individual customer doesn't assign value, that's why you can't buy a luxury cruise liner for 3 bucks fifty. It requires millions of labor hours to construct a cruise liner. And you can't buy millions of labor hours for a little over 3 bucks. Go try assign 3.5 bucks to a cruise ship and see whether any supply materializes for that price.

>And different people bid different amounts on the same thing at auctions.
This is a ludicrous ideological narrative, commerce doesn't work like an auction, you don't go to the grocery store to bid on a salad, with an auctioneer yelling price-increments and customers holding up numbered-signs to place a bid.
>A bottle of water is worth $1 in the store and $1,000,000 in the desert.
Except that there are no stores in the middle of the desert that sell water bottles for a million. This has nothing to do with the actually existing economy. And while were at it price-gauging is risky, many people would kill for water if they got thirsty enough.
>If you own a car and move to new york where parking is very expensive
Big city parking-prices are caused by a natural monopoly, you pay monopoly rent. That's a hole different story. We can go into the details of that, if you're interested pls ask.
>>

 No.482815

>>482786
>Labor theory of value does agree with the economic data.
That's called painting the target around the arrow. Your "economic data" is a list of products and services that have been successfully sold and then you work backwards and say "ah-ha they all required labor". I've read Cockshott too.

But LTV does not work forwards. You cannot look at how much labor goes into a startup company then predict how much profit it will make. Some will make billions some will go broke. Because labor is not what determines value, it is merely a statistical correlation.

>This is easy to counter, money buys labor power, it's the only thing it buys.
>And that's where it stops, the farmer doesn't put money into the ground in return for holding on to the plants and catching the rain. So it's labor all the way down.
That's because you think "money" is magic paper that falls out of the Fed chair's ass. If I pay the farmer in seeds then he will put it into the ground in return for more plants.

>The individual customer doesn't assign value, that's why you can't buy a luxury cruise liner for 3 bucks fifty.
You can't do that because the seller won't give it to you. If I gave you $100m and you still don't buy it that is you deciding you value the $100m more than the boat. But people do buy boats so there are people in the world who value the boat more than the $100m. You can't explain this discrepancy with LTV.

>It requires millions of labor hours to construct a cruise liner.
>And you can't buy millions of labor hours for a little over 3 bucks.
Remember a few years ago when there was like a virus or something and all the cruise companies went out of business. They were selling off cruise liners for well under cost. A bunch of seasteaders actually bought a $300m ship for $10m. So that's not a valid argument either. When a company fails the creditors will sell off inventory below the price of the labor that went into it. Another example of why LTV is bullshit.

>This is a ludicrous ideological narrative, commerce doesn't work like an auction
You understand that auctions do exist. How does LTV explain why two people bid different amounts for the same product?

>Except that there are no stores in the middle of the desert that sell water bottles for a million.
I'm pretty sure Abu Dhabi does have stores and they do sell water for much more than your local store.
If you're this creatively challenged though I'll spell out a story for you
>you are dying of thirst in the desert
>a man on a camel finds you
>he will sell you a bottle of water for $100
>you buy it because you value your life more than $100
Despite the fact that you pass identical bottles of water in the grocery store, they are all marked $1 and you don't buy them. But the same labor went into every bottle so according to LTV they should all have the same value.

>This has nothing to do with the actually existing economy.
It's a variation on the water diamond paradox. Try reading an economics book that was written this century.

>Big city parking-prices are caused by a natural monopoly, you pay monopoly rent. That's a hole different story. We can go into the details of that, if you're interested pls ask.
Cute. Try defending labor theory of value first because you're not doing a very good job.
>>

 No.482817

>>482815
>Your "economic data" is a list of products and services that have been successfully sold and then you work backwards and say "ah-ha they all required labor". I've read Cockshott too.
Well if you had read Cockshott you'd know that it's a bit more than that, labor-time correlates almost perfectly with value.

>But LTV does not work forwards. You cannot look at how much labor goes into a startup company then predict how much profit it will make.
Socialist economic theory looks a lot further forward, towards the next mode of production. Where the economic calculations are entirely rational and based on labor-time and material resources. Why would socialist economic theory be designed to help capitalists make profits, when the goal is to move past that and have the workers be the ones in controle of the economy. I guess that technically it would be possible to use the LTV that way, but i doubt that the thought ever occurred to a socialist economist. How many capitalist economists do you know that are working on solving economic problems of feudalism ?

>That's because you think "money" is
I think money is the power to command labor-power.
>If I pay the farmer in seeds then he will put it into the ground in return for more plants.
I doubt that you'll be able to pay a farmer in seeds, he'll tell you that he needs money to buy tractor fuel, fertilizer, pesticides and so on. And that money pays the workers in the oil-rig and chemical-plant.

>You can't do that because the seller won't give it to you. If I gave you $100m and you still don't buy it that is you deciding you value the $100m more than the boat. But people do buy boats so there are people in the world who value the boat more than the $100m.
You admitted that customers do not decide the prices, and for the record even huge boats are behaving like commodities predicted by the LTV.

>Remember a few years ago when there was like a virus or something and all the cruise companies went out of business.
You having to scrape the bottom of the barrel for outliers caused by emergency situations proves that the LTV works.
Nobody expects economic theory to predict a plague.

>You understand that auctions do exist.
On the fringes outside of regular commerce, it's not relevant for the economy overall.
>How does LTV explain why two people bid different amounts for the same product?
Individual people can engage in irrational behavior, or simply operate on bad information. The point is this averages out over the entire economy. The goal of doing labor-time calculations is to find the correct prices that yields a good economy for society.

>I'm pretty sure Abu Dhabi does have stores and they do sell water for much more than your local store.
I'm pretty sure the price differential isn't a factor of one million.

>If you're this creatively challenged though I'll spell out a story for you
<camel-man combs through the desert to scam some unlucky bastard with overpriced bottled water.
Contrived hypothetical scenarios are not arguments.

>It's a variation on the water diamond paradox. Try reading an economics book
Most of the mainstream economic text books are written like theology designed to justify capitalism, not explain how it works.
>>

 No.482842

>>482557
I have no clue, I haven't read any Trotsky and don't care much to
>>

 No.482847

>>482842
You don't have to agree with everything Trotsky said or did to find this an invaluable source on history.
>>

 No.482936

Any good books on American syndicalism/socialism? I can barely find anything on the likes of Daniel De Leon
>>

 No.482945

File: 1721151217918.png ( 102.06 KB , 589x871 , e691e9dfafa46ea087f488f912….png )

>>482817
>labor-time correlates almost perfectly with value.
Only if you pick products and services which were sold at a profit. Companies that fail to sell the products for more than labor costs are removed from the market and therefor do not show up in your "economic data". Like I said, this doesn't "prove" LTV it is merely an exercise of working backwards to get the conclusion you want.

>Socialist economic theory looks a lot further forward, towards the next mode of production. Where the economic calculations are entirely rational and based on labor-time and material resources.
Listen to your own cope. Your economic theories don't even work now but you think they will magically start working in an imaginary future.

>Why would socialist economic theory be designed to help capitalists make profits
Because you can't. LTV was debunked by all other schools of economics around 150 years ago.

>I doubt that you'll be able to pay a farmer in seeds
Farmers have more use for seeds than anybody else.

>You admitted that customers do not decide the prices
You decide what has value to you. If you value a cruise ship at 3.5 bucks and somebody is selling one for 3.5 bucks then you will buy it won't you. Your argument that you can't always force somebody to sell at the price you want is missing the point. You only buy the ship if you value the ship more than the money. And the seller only sells if he values the money more than the ship. Both sides need to be happy for the trade to go ahead. That's the magic of free market capitalism. Either both sides win or the trade doesn't happen.

>You having to scrape the bottom of the barrel for outliers caused by emergency situations proves that the LTV works.
Companies get liquidated all the time. You are suffering from survivor bias, you think all companies sell products for more than the labor cost precisely because those are the only companies that survive.

>for the record even huge boats are behaving like commodities predicted by the LTV.
In 2020 a $280m cruise ship called the Pacific Dawn was sold for $10m. LTV cannot even explain this event let alone predict it.

>Individual people can engage in irrational behavior
Aw you're so close just admit it. Value is subjective. People bid $100.000 on air-cooled 911s because they think it's cool, not because that's the value of labor that went into manufacturing the car.

>I'm pretty sure the price differential isn't a factor of one million.
Pick whatever number you want as long as the price is different from the "labor cost" then LTV is wrong.

>It's a variation on the water diamond paradox. Try reading an economics book
Don't chop up quotes like that. I said
>Try reading an economics book that was written this century.
Trying to understand modern economics by reading Marx is like trying to understand quantum physics by reading Aristotle.
>>

 No.482950

>>482945
>Only if you pick products and services which were sold at a profit.
That's generally how capitalism works, you can't really be mad that economic theory reflects this reality.
>Companies that fail to sell the products for more than labor costs are removed from the market and therefor do not show up in your "economic data"
I fail to see the problem. You can't base an economic theory about prices on going-out-of-business-discounts.

>Your economic theories don't even work now
but they do
>LTV was debunked
No there were dishonest attempts at socially discrediting labor-theory, but nobody has refuted it on scientific grounds, because the empirical data supports it.

>Farmers have more use for seeds than anybody else.
You're forgetting flower mills, but farmers can't work for seeds because agriculture is no longer based on subsistence farming, and industrial agriculture require farmers to buy industrial inputs.

>You decide what has value to you.
It's not a valid basis for a price theory. Businesses can't consistently sell commodities below production costs, to accommodate subjective lowball value. Subjective over-valuation doesn't work either because people can't spend more money than they have. All subjective value theorists do, is point at edge-cases. Like a bankruptcy-sale or some rich person with the ability to overpay. But that's not how the bulk of the economy works.

>Pick whatever number you want as long as the price is different from the "labor cost" then LTV is wrong.
You're water-bottle thought-experiment is based on hypothetical premises. Its got nothing to do with real world economics. By the way water is more expensive in Abu Dhabi, because they have to run expensive desalination-plants.

>Trying to understand modern economics by reading Marx is like trying to understand quantum physics by reading Aristotle.
Most of what marx wrote remains true. What Marx got wrong is the profit-equalization-tendency. Marx thought that different economic sectors in capitalism would all tend towards having the same profit-rate, and that appears to be false. It's a really obscure detail that required some minor corrections in the theory. It turns out that the profit-rate falls because of demographic shrinkage, instead of technological factors. And you probably have no idea what i'm talking about.

Modern mainstream economic theory is intended to provide justifications for things that happened after the fact, its a kind of secular theology, it doesn't explain how any of that stuff works. And capitalists don't actually use it to run their businesses. In the corporate world the closest thing to actual economic theory is usually called something like "Operations". It's like psychology that has been converted to sell lots of pills to people, and actual psychology happens in marketing research.
>>

 No.482953

File: 1721161320532.jpeg ( 39.36 KB , 474x545 , th-4115495058.jpeg )

>>482950
>You can't base an economic theory about prices on going-out-of-business-discounts.
Cockshott's 'economic data' only contains established companies with plenty of competition which keeps prices close to cost. I'm sure Honeywell selling nuclear bombs to the government for 1000x over cost is not in the data.

If LTV was "correct" then you should be able to predict how much money a new company will make based on the labor that went in. But you can't. You can only work backwards from carefully selected data.

>I fail to see the problem.
I know, I am basically explaining to a christian why god is not real. Even if you get it on some level you won't admit it.

>Businesses can't consistently sell commodities below production costs, to accommodate subjective lowball value.
That's why you need to sell a product that people subjectively value more than the production cost. Predicting what such a product might be is the job of investors and entrepreneurs.

>Subjective over-valuation doesn't work either because people can't spend more money than they have.
Except most things are sold at a profit.

>subjective value theorists
That's like saying "round earth theorists". Every school of economics mainstream or not switched from labor theory of value to subjective value in the late 1800s.

>point at edge-cases. Like a bankruptcy-sale or some rich person with the ability to overpay. But that's not how the bulk of the economy works.
You don't have to be rich to pay $100 for a funko pop. A little plastic toy of your favorite marval superman character does not cost $100 of labor to manufacture. And a toy of a less popular character will sell for less despite taking the same amount of materials and the same amount of labor by the same workers in the same factory. You pay $5 for a dvd of a movie which cost $100m to make. There are so many exceptions it is your cherry-picked data where LTV "works" that is the edge case.

>You're water-bottle thought-experiment is based on hypothetical premises.
Fine I'll give you another one. Water in the store is $1 a bottle. You have $100. According to LTV every bottle has identical value so there is no rational reason to buy 1-99 bottles. You either buy 0 because the money is "worth" more or you buy 100 because the water is "worth" more.

This is where the marginal revolution comes in. You buy 1 bottle because you have 0 bottles and you subjectively value 1 bottle more than $1. Now that you already have 1 bottle the 2nd bottle is subjectively worth less to you. The marginal utility of each additional bottle goes down until the Nth bottle is no longer worth more than $1 to you so you stop adding them to your cart.

>Most of what marx wrote remains true.
Marx lived under a gold standard before fiat currency, central banks, keynesianism, globalism or any of our modern financial infrastructure. Even if Marx was right about anything he was living in a completely different world. Marxism can't explain inflation for example because inflation didn't exist when Marx was alive.
>>

 No.482963

>>482953
>If LTV was "correct" then you should be able to predict how much money a new company will make based on the labor that went in. But you can't. You can only work backwards from carefully selected data.
You don't seem to understand at all what the labor theory of value actually attempts to predict. It does not make any sort of predictions about the prices of things at a granular level. Please stop attacking a straw man and actually learn about the model you're attempting to critique. It's really tiresome how often this issue arises in low-level debates where right-wing dogmatists can't seem to cross the most basic of mental hurdles to understand that the word "value" for Marx (and other classical economists of his period) had an entirely different meaning from the word "price".
>>

 No.482966

>>482953
>Cockshott's 'economic data' only contains established companies with plenty of competition which keeps prices close to cost. I'm sure Honeywell selling nuclear bombs to the government for 1000x over cost is not in the data.
<The government subjectively over-values nukes by a factor of a thousand.
You're a clown, the military industrial complex uses corruption and blackmail, to juice procurement. Subjective value my ass.
>you should be able to predict how much money a new company will make
Why do you insist about complaining that socialist economic theory isn't designed to help individual capitalists make investment decisions. Of course it's not it's designed to help workers understand the hole of the economy.

>That's why you need to sell a product that people subjectively value more than the production cost. Predicting what such a product might be is the job of investors and entrepreneurs.
>Except most things are sold at a profit.
I see where your confusion comes from. Profits come from exploiting labor.

>Every school of economics mainstream or not switched from labor theory of value to subjective value in the late 1800s.
Because the bourgeoisie realized the political implications of admitting that economic value comes from labor. OMG a ruling class embracing a lie that justifies their rule. Absolutely Shocking.

> $100 for A little plastic toy
Stuff like this can only exist because of copy-monopoly-rent. It's copy-monopoly-capitalists stealing profits from their competitors.

>Fine I'll give you another one. Water in the store is $1 a bottle. You have $100. According to LTV every bottle has identical value so there is no rational reason to buy 1-99 bottles. You either buy 0 because the money is "worth" more or you buy 100 because the water is "worth" more.
WTF ?
What does negative 98 bottles even mean ? and Why do you think anybody would buy a 100 bottles of water if they needed only 1. Do you seriously expect people to speculate with water-bottles like they do with stock-certificates ?
>This is where the marginal revolution comes in. You buy 1 bottle because you have 0 bottles and you subjectively value 1 bottle more than $1. Now that you already have 1 bottle the 2nd bottle is subjectively worth less to you.
Cool ideological story bro, but unless you can calculate the marginal utility of commodity, i'm going to say it's made up words.

>Marx lived under a gold standard before fiat currency, central banks, keynesianism, globalism or any of our modern financial infrastructure. Even if Marx was right about anything he was living in a completely different world. Marxism can't explain inflation for example because inflation didn't exist when Marx was alive.
Marx thought money buys labor-power, that is still true. And inflation also existed in the 1800s
>>

 No.482970

>>482953
>Every school of economics mainstream or not switched from labor theory of value to subjective value in the late 1800s.
Ah yes, the Counter-Enlightenment. Members of the ruling class got a little too uncomfortable the logical conclusions of classical political economy so they started funding stooges to sap all the empiricism out of economics and replace it with unfalsifiable naval gazing and cheerleading.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120505232458/https://michael-hudson.com/2010/05/neoliberalism-and-the-counter-enlightenment/
>>

 No.483021

File: 1721336800335.jpg ( 52.35 KB , 460x585 , da9a135bbb41d8fd2cc20ad408….jpg )

>>482963
>It does not make any sort of predictions about the prices of things at a granular level.
Because it can't. Because it's wrong.

><The government subjectively over-values nukes by a factor of a thousand.
They don't value the nukes at all they value the kickbacks they get from the military contractors for using tax money they stole from workers to overpay for equipment.

>corruption
Correct. The fact that they are not spending their own money changes things a little but not really.

>You're a clown
It must be frustrating when somebody is tearing apart your religion with facts and logic but you have to be better.

>I see where your confusion comes from. Profits come from exploiting labor.
<buy gold for $1 an ounce
<wait 100 years
<sell for $3000
Where is the labor.

>Because the bourgeoisie realized the political implications of admitting that economic value comes from labor.
Not every school of economics is on the side of the "bourgeoisie". I want the throw bankers out of a helicopter more than you do.

>Stuff like this can only exist because of copy-monopoly-rent.
The prices are inflated by intellectual property but not created by it. Micky Mouse still sells for more than Goofy because people like Micky Mouse more.

>What does negative 98 bottles even mean ?
Pretending I said something stupid doesn't make me stupid. It just makes you a pathetic liar.

>Why do you think anybody would buy a 100 bottles of water if they needed only 1.
<You either buy 0 because the money is "worth" more or you buy 100 because the water is "worth" more.

>unless you can calculate the marginal utility of commodity, i'm going to say it's made up words
Guess what, it's subjective. Like you just said, it depends on how many bottles you need.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility

>>482970
I sympathize with your point that the "ruling class" funds academic research that preserves their power (keynesianism, global warming, critical race theory etc.). But when every school of economics switches that is precisely the opposite, that is more like a galilo moment when the church can no longer suppress the truth.
>>

 No.483024

>>482963
> It does not make any sort of predictions about the prices of things at a granular level.
>>483021
Because it can't.
I've thought about this for a while, and i think it might actually be possible to make these detailed calculations, if we could persuade companies to give us all the low-level information. It would also require modeling the fluctuations in the markets which would be something new to figure out.

>They don't value the nukes at all they value the kickbacks they get from the military contractors for using tax money they stole from workers to overpay for equipment.
>Correct. The fact that they are not spending their own money changes things a little but not really.
You're too deep into ideology, you don't need economic theory to realize that the war-biz is a racket.

>buy gold for $1 an ounce
>wait 100 years
>sell for $3000
By that logic everybody in the economy is wrong to produce goods and services. They should just buy gold and wait, the economy would grow by a factor of 3000 every century.

>Not every school of economics is on the side of the "bourgeoisie". I want the throw bankers out of a helicopter more than you do.
I want the means of production.

>The prices are inflated by intellectual property but not created by it. Micky Mouse still sells for more than Goofy because people like Micky Mouse more.
Are there any plastic figurines that are genuine textbook commodities ? I mean without copy monopoly rent ? I would like to look at some real world data first.

>You either buy 0 because the money is "worth" more or you buy 100 because the water is "worth" more.
I think your 100 bottles examples is just divorced from reality.

>marginal utility
>Guess what, it's subjective.
<It's magic i ain't gotta explain shit
If you can't calculate the marginal utility of a commodity, what's the point of including it in your economic theory ?

>Like you just said, it depends on how many bottles you need.
are you saying marginal utility = need ?
>>

 No.483027

>>483021
>it can't cuz it's wrong
So a theory is wrong because it doesn't attempt to predict something that you'd like it to? Why doesn't Darwin's theory of evolution by natural descent explain gravity? Must be wrong!

>But when every school of economics switches that is precisely the opposite
Well now you're simply making shit up, because in reality there are still plenty of Marxist economists around the world who take very seriously Marx's labor theory of value. It's an easy way to out yourself as an American though, because only there has economics academia been so harshly exclusionary towards Marxists. Not completely though, you can still find Marxist economists in small pockets of resistance like the New School and University of Missouri-Kansas City.
>>

 No.483038

File: 1721415918976.jpg ( 32.08 KB , 460x368 , 62c4b09130f747bf4aa00e753d….jpg )

>>483024
>You're too deep into ideology, you don't need economic theory to realize that the war-biz is a racket.
LTV can't explain why government overpays for equipment. Subjective value and marginal utility is a better model for explaining real world behavior.

>By that logic everybody in the economy is wrong to produce goods and services. They should just buy gold and wait, the economy would grow by a factor of 3000 every century.
You didn't answer the question. You said profit comes from "exploiting" labor. Where is the labor in this scenario?

>I want the means of production.
You already have the means of production. Computer programmers make 6 figures using a computer just like the one you use to look at furry porn. The OS, compiler and libraries are all free and open source. What's your excuse now.

>Are there any plastic figurines that are genuine textbook commodities ?
Movies and anime and tv shows and video games would still exist in a world without IP. And fans will still buy plastic figures of popular characters. Without government interventions market competition might push the prices down to $5 instead of $50. It doesn't change my point though which is that popular characters will fetch a higher price despite the same labor going into each toy. That's because value is determined by the individual.

>I think your 100 bottles examples is just divorced from reality.
It's a scenario that breaks LTV.

><It's magic i ain't gotta explain shit
It's not magic it's subjective. Only you know what ratio of dollars to water you want. Just like how only you know if you want strawberry or vanilla ice cream.

>If you can't calculate the marginal utility of a commodity, what's the point of including it in your economic theory ?
It explains real world behavior better than LTV. Your decision to buy one bottle instead of two has nothing at all to do with the labor that went into making the bottles. When there is a clearance sale the production cost doesn't even factor into the seller's price either.

>are you saying marginal utility = need ?
No marginal utility is the diminishing gains from acquiring more of something you already have. It explains why you would rather have 1 bottle + $1 rather than 2 bottles + $0.

>>483027
>So a theory is wrong because it doesn't attempt to predict something that you'd like it to?
You're the one who said LTV "agrees" with the economic data >>482786. I'm saying it only agrees with a carefully selected subset of economic data and only post hoc. i.e. it has no predictive capability.

>there are still plenty of Marxist economists around the world who take very seriously Marx's labor theory of value
It's not Marx's labor theory of value it's Adam Smith's labor theory of value. And counting marxism as a school of economics is debatable but ok. Apart from marxists nobody else has taken LTV seriously since 150 years.

>economics academia been so harshly exclusionary towards Marxists
Universities wouldn't be able to charge outrageous tuition fees in the free market. Their scam depends on government guaranteeing the student loans with tax money. For that reason all of academia is fundamentally left-wing by nature.
>>

 No.483039

>>483038
>You're the one who said
In fact there's more than one anon in here who think your arguments are retarded.
>>

 No.483040

File: 1721416924712.png ( 40.14 KB , 715x387 , rate of profit, 14 core co….png )

>>483038
>it has no predictive capability.
The labor theory of value makes about a dozen predictions, they're just not the kind of predictions you're interested in. One of them that has been strongly empirically validated at this point is the long-term tendency of profitability to decline in industrial capital sectors. No other economic theory has anything to say about this phenomenon and doesn't make this prediction.
>>

 No.483041

>>483038
You have a very biased view about how individual departments are funded in academia. For Economics departments it's generally not tuition fees. Economics departments have a long tradition of being propped up by massive endowments contributed by bankers and industrialists. They are arguably the single most political focal point of universities, because they produce the future government policy makers that will either protect or threaten their donors' fortunes. And for this very reason they tend to be fundamentally right-wing by nature.
>>

 No.483043

>>483038
>LTV can't explain why government overpays for equipment.
Arms-industry got privatized and they're bribing the people who decide the budget and dole out contracts. There's nothing subjective about it.

>You didn't answer the question. You said profit comes from "exploiting" labor. Where is the labor in this scenario?
In the scenario where everybody hordes gold, the economy collapses, proving the point that no labor means no profits

>You already have the means of production.
I phrased that badly, the goal of socialism is for the workers to controle the majority of means of production on a society level.

>Movies and anime and tv shows and video games would still exist in a world without IP.
Honestly there probably would be more entertainment in a world without IP. Funding for entertainment would shift to a plethora of crowdfunding schemes. That business-model favors lots of mid sized productions that more accurately target the taste of specific groups, rather than mega productions that do lowest common denominator.

>competition might push the prices down to $5 instead of $50.
Agreed
>It doesn't change my point though which is that popular characters will fetch a higher price despite the same labor going into each toy.
that is just speculation on your part.

>It's a scenario that breaks LTV.
The scenario where somebody goes into a store and decides to buy 100 bottles of water because it's so cheap, that's just not what happens in reality.

>It's not magic it's subjective. Only you know what ratio of dollars to water you want. Just like how only you know if you want strawberry or vanilla ice cream.
This is useless for economic theory. For a economy you just need to know how many of a given product you need to produce, and for that you only need a few feedback mechanisms.

>marginal utility is the diminishing gains from acquiring more of something you already have.
There are no diminishing gains for more energy.
>>

 No.483086

File: 1721672925590.jpg ( 78.27 KB , 1200x900 , Gas-Flaring-in-Nigeria.jpg )

>>483040
>One of them that has been strongly empirically validated at this point is the long-term tendency of profitability to decline in industrial capital sectors.
Why would LTV predict that? If you ask me, the fact that the richest countries in the world have almost no labor or manufacturing capacity would be another nail in the coffin for "all value comes from labor". I mean, labor is so irrelevant to the modern economy you have a $15 minimum wage and literally nobody cares enough to lobbying against it.

Also a prediction means "it is 2024, I predict in 2029 we will see X happen because of theory Y". I see a lot of lefty "predictions" that are simply taking the data and working backwards like we could have predicted this so let's pretend we did.

>>483041
>And for this very reason they tend to be fundamentally right-wing by nature.
What do you mean "right-wing" though? Everything the state does now is out of the communist manifesto (fiat money, central banking, progressive taxes, insanely high minimum wage and labor protections). What part of the economy do you look at and say "damn the free market capitalists totally run this shit". Here's the thing, the ruling class want socialism too, they just want a version of socialism where they plan the economy for their benefit instead of "the people".

>>483043
>Arms-industry got privatized and they're bribing the people who decide the budget and dole out contracts. There's nothing subjective about it.
The socialist bureaucrats subjectively value Honeywell's bribes more than GE's bribes. The point you are supposed to be proving is that that labor that went into the products is what determines "value".

>In the scenario where everybody hordes gold, the economy collapses, proving the point that no labor means no profits
I didn't say everybody hordes gold I said one guy bought it and sat on it for a while before selling again for a higher price. If profits come from labor and this person made a profit then where is the labor?

>I phrased that badly, the goal of socialism is for the workers to controle the majority of means of production on a society level.
lol of course. In the mean time why don't you just take the MOP you already control and use it to prove how much better socialism is?

>that is just speculation on your part.
Trump sells for $400 https://www.ebay.com/itm/135135258065
Bernie sells for $30 https://www.ebay.com/itm/375551055269
Did it really take $370 more labor to make the trump one?

>The scenario where somebody goes into a store and decides to buy 100 bottles of water because it's so cheap, that's just not what happens in reality.
Why not? If the real "value" was $2 why wouldn't you buy everything you can afford and then sell them to double your money? Ok obviously leftists are financially illiterate by definition but you understand that a rival retailer would do that if "objective value" was a real thing and somebody tried to sell something below that value. 'That is the thing that doesn't happen in reality because objective value doesn't exist.

> For a economy you just need to know how many of a given product you need to produce, and for that you only need a few feedback mechanisms.
One of those feedback mechanisms being people telling you what they subjectively want.

>There are no diminishing gains for more energy.
If you have solar panels in your house and they are generating more energy than you use right now then you can sell the excess to the grid. The price you get depends on demand. If the grid is already full then the price can fall to zero or even negative (they pay you to take excess energy out of the grid and store it). That's an example of diminishing gains for more energy. Energy is actually quite an obvious one because it is so difficult to store, miners literally burn off excess gas and oil on site.
>>

 No.483090

File: 1721680460165.jpg ( 480.65 KB , 1440x1920 , 1719251640717725.jpg )

>>483086
That anon dsidn't say that. The general tendency of the rate of profit to decline over time doesn't have anything to do directly with what you are talking about, kek. Over all profit declines exactly because capitalists, in their ineffable myopia, are in a race to the bottom. Everyone wants to remove labor from the equation and increase their short term profits because capitalists cannot think in the long term. This can only be done through technological innovation. But the issue is that because of how labor works as a commodity in the economy; The only commodity in the economy that can produce MORE than you actually have to expend to put into it you find less and less capital flowing through out the economy over time.

Thus, in a general sense, capitalists are able to squeeze less and less profits out of consumers purchasing their products because in their own myopic race to the bottom they are hanging themselves by doing exactly that; Removing labor from the equation.
>>

 No.483093

>>483086
> subjectively value Honeywell's bribes more than GE's bribes.
Sounds like you are trying to over-extend your ideology. If you want to claim that the military industrial complex bribing for contracts is just a regular market transaction, then you are saying that markets suck at finding prices and allocating resources. All those boondoggles… Are you sure, you want to make corruption into a regular transaction ? I don't think that helps your argument.
>The point you are supposed to be proving is that that labor that went into the products is what determines "value".
If you look at regular commerce value does correlate with labor-time almost perfectly.

>I didn't say everybody hordes gold I said one guy bought it and sat on it for a while before selling again for a higher price. If profits come from labor and this person made a profit then where is the labor?
The point was to show you that if you remove all the labor from the system, the profits go away, and your value-voodoo doesn't work anymore.

>In the mean time why don't you just take the MOP you already control and use it to prove how much better socialism is?
If i build something, how does that prove anything about socialism ?

>Did it really take $370 more labor to make the trump one?
If we look at the economy as a hole, it does correlate with labor time. I don't know why you think pointing out the fluctuations helps your argument.

>Why not? If the real "value" was $2 why wouldn't you buy everything you can afford and then sell them to double your money?
>a rival retailer would do that
See there's the problem i don't have a retail store, that lets me re-sell water-bottles and "double my money". I'd just be stuck with a pile of water-bottles.

>One of those feedback mechanisms being people telling you what they subjectively want.
The feedback systems only have the purpose to help determine the quantity of production. That's an objective measure. I doubt that you can draw any conclusions about internal mental states of people based on that.

>If you have solar panels in your house and they are generating more energy than you use right now then you can sell the excess to the grid. The price you get depends on demand. If the grid is already full then the price can fall to zero or even negative (they pay you to take excess energy out of the grid and store it). That's an example of diminishing gains for more energy.
No this shit only happens because energy grids are neglected infrastructure. If you add more grid interconnections, and more transmission capacity, this dynamic vanishes.
>>

 No.483109

File: 1721756399644.jpg ( 26.15 KB , 460x316 , 9557639d1abe098ab6c68b9d5c….jpg )

>>483090
>no green text
I don't know what you are responding to specifically.

>>483093
>If you want to claim that the military industrial complex bribing for contracts is just a regular market transaction, then you are saying that markets suck at finding prices and allocating resources.
What "market"? Only a selected few corporations are permitted to manufacture weapons in the first place. And for the side who thinks all value comes from labor you seem to have a hard time comprehending that the government does not do any labor. The state stole everything they have from workers.

>Are you sure, you want to make corruption into a regular transaction ?
My arguments for subjective value and marginal utility work fine once you realize what the real transaction is.

>If you look at regular commerce value does correlate with labor-time almost perfectly.
In other words this is another "corner case" that happens all the time but LTV can't explain.

>The point was to show you that if you remove all the labor from the system, the profits go away, and your value-voodoo doesn't work anymore.
And what was my point? You changed the subject because you couldn't address my original point.

>If i build something, how does that prove anything about socialism ?
You tell me what the plan is
>seize the means of production
>???
>SOCIALISM
What is stopping you from applying socialist principles to improve your life on a small scale? Why does it only "work" after you've conquered the whole world? A cynic might get the idea that socialism doesn't work it is merely a blueprint for dictators to acquire power.

>If we look at the economy as a hole, it does correlate with labor time.
Except all the "corner cases" I mentioned. Government spending, auctions, clearance sales, price gauging, popular characters selling for more than unpopular characters and every startup that doesn't make it or established company that goes broke. You're saying if we ignore all that then LTV "correlates" to whatever is left.

>I doubt that you can draw any conclusions about internal mental states of people based on that.
What's exactly why planned economies don't work. You can't read other people's minds.

>No this shit only happens because energy grids are neglected infrastructure.
It happens because energy loads fluctuate. When the football half time whistle blows, power plants spin up production because 30 million people are about to run into the kitchen to put the kettle on. But not all energy spikes and troughs are predictable like that. You can't read everybody's minds to know exactly how much electricity they need in 1 hour's time. All you can do is guess and then shed the extra load if you over estimated.
>>

 No.483113

>>483109
>What "market"? Only a selected few corporations are permitted to manufacture weapons in the first place.
I guess the restricted options for supply was caused by another one of those "subjectivities". s/
You wanted to shoe-horn corruption into economic theory, i warned against that.
>And for the side who thinks all value comes from labor
Go ahead conceptually subtract all the labor from the economy, it just poofs out of existence.
>you seem to have a hard time comprehending that the government does not do any labor. The state stole everything they have from workers.
Well you can have public enterprises that are productive. When it comes to weapons production, state-run arms-industry tends to produce weapons that have more bang for the buck. Pun intended.
>My arguments for subjective value and marginal utility work fine once you realize what the real transaction is.
Unless you can define real vs unreal transactions imma file this under mental gymnastics.
>regular commerce
>is another "corner case"
Now you're inverting the reality, you're the one bringing up corner cases to justify your value-theory.
LTV works for the bulk of the economy, the default case.

>What is stopping you from applying socialist principles
>on a small scale?
Socialist principles mean the workers own the means of production. The bourgeois state won't let workers do that, they get really mad if you go expropriating capitalists even on a small scale.
Are you pulling my leg ?

>Government spending, auctions, clearance sales, price gauging, popular characters selling for more than unpopular characters and every startup that doesn't make it or established company that goes broke. You're saying if we ignore all that then LTV "correlates" to whatever is left.
I could write a wall of text to cover all your examples, however before we do the long-winded technical breakdown, lets try another perspective:
The economy works by extracting resources from the environment and it transforms those into commodities with labor-power. Within this flow of transforming matter an energy, money only interacts with labor-power. There is an illusion that money commands things, but have you ever tried paying a thing to do something ?

>What's exactly why planned economies don't work. You can't read other people's minds.
The point is that economic planning doesn't need to read minds. A fully developed planned economy operates on the basis that people give it instructions. Think of it like pre-ordering, but on the level of the hole economy not just individual commodities.

You know who's actually trying to read minds ? Marketing !

>When the football half time whistle blows, power plants spin up production because 30 million people are about to run into the kitchen to put the kettle on
That's just flawed technology design, it would be much easier to have insulated kettles that maintain a small supply of near-boiling temperature water, those would spread the load, and not produce energy spikes in the grid that require all that faffing about. All the thermal power-plants could have thermal buffer storage, between the heat-source and the generators, so that it's possible to spin up extra generators if the need arises without having to over-build the power plant.
>>

 No.483117

Water is actually a relatively poor means of storing energy due to its small range of temperatures where it can remain a liquid. Far better to store power for load fluctuations with a molten salt.
>>

 No.483119

>>483117
>Water is actually a relatively poor means of storing energy due to its small range of temperatures where it can remain a liquid. Far better to store power for load fluctuations with a molten salt.
I agree that something like molten salt is the way to go for thermal buffer storage in a power-plant.

However for a water-kettle in your kitchen, molten-salt is total overkill. A insulated temperature controlled kettle that just keeps a quantity of hot water is fine.
>>

 No.483133

File: 1721843070764.png ( 236.28 KB , 1000x533 , 9cba16b95f9ae619794466ed32….png )

>>483113
>I guess the restricted options for supply was caused by another one of those "subjectivities"
No the government artificially restricts competition to benefit the existing corporations. That's what government regulations are, they do not exist to protect the citizens from the big evil corporations, they exist to protect the big evil corporations from free market competition.

>You wanted to shoe-horn corruption into economic theory, i warned against that.
I don't understand what your problem is, corruption is a thing that exists in the world and you have to be able to account for it. You can't just say "that's not how things are supposed to work therefor I don't need to explain it".

>Go ahead conceptually subtract all the labor from the economy
That's actually a dumb argument. If you were stranded on a desert island with no society or evil capitalism you still need to do labor to keep yourself alive. You might as well say that without oxygen there would be no economy therefor all value comes from oxygen.

>Well you can have public enterprises that are productive. When it comes to weapons production, state-run arms-industry
Didn't we literally just go over this.
>government steals taxes from the workers
>politicians give money to buddies in private industry
>private industry funds politician's next election
>muh productivity
This is literally a scam. They are scamming you. The only reason Elon Musk is a billionaire is because you pay taxes.

>Unless you can define real vs unreal transactions imma file this under mental gymnastics.
A politician and a honeywell sales rep are not trading huge amounts of public money for nukes. They are trading political influence in exchange for a personal bribe. I already warned you about this playing dumb stuff. You're only embarrassing yourself.

>LTV works for the bulk of the economy, the default case.
<Government spending, auctions, clearance sales, price gauging, popular characters selling for more than unpopular characters and every startup that doesn't make it or established company that goes broke
My theory accounts for all voluntary transactions. Your's only accounts for a carefully selected subset. My theory is superior to yours. It's as simple as that.

>A fully developed planned economy operates on the basis that people give it instructions.
And what do you do when everybody wants a Ferrari? You understand the whole point of economics is to manage scarce resources. If you're already living in your post-scarcity higher communism utopia where everything you want magically falls from the sky you don't need any kind of economic system to manage that situation.

>You know who's actually trying to read minds ? Marketing !
What do you think marketing is. It is the job of investors and entrepreneurs to predict what market wants. And the ones who get it right gain money and the ones who get it wrong lose money. One of the many problems with central planning is that the planners do not suffer when they get things wrong, it is everybody else who is forced to suffer instead. As a smart lady once said, picrel.

>hat's just flawed technology design, it would be much easier to have insulated kettles that maintain a small supply of near-boiling temperature water, those would spread the load, and not produce energy spikes in the grid that require all that faffing about.
Yes I know if reality was different then you would be right. You have to live in the reality you live in though. A reality with scarcity and trafeoffs.
>>

 No.483194

So apparently Caleb Maupin wrote a book on Kamala Harris in 2020, which has just now been removed from Amazon after her recent coronation. I wanted to give it a look but sadly it's not on libgen. Anyone have it?
>>

 No.483207

>>483194
noticed that too

Here's Maupin's comment on the censorship:
Book on Kamala Harris banned by Amazon - Chat with Jimmy Dore
https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=nNvi7GiUzdA

Amazon kept pretending the cover was bad. He might be able to sue, idk. Or he could try to re-upload the book as fiction and slightly change all the names and places to cheeky phonologs, like her name could become K'mala Airris or something.

You might get the book from here:
https://calebmaupin.gumroad.com/l/ndblg
>>

 No.483246

File: 1722356315535.pdf ( 4.28 MB , 188x300 , Kamala Harris The Future o….pdf )

>>483194
>>

 No.483249

File: 1722357657585.png ( 403.36 KB , 141x141 , thumbs up brah.png )

>>483246
Anon delivers.
>>

 No.484076

>>326367
>The deadman's tomb (it is ok to make jokes at the author's expense by now) is a long, harrowing adventure across humanity's existence and humanity's collective philosophy. It is, above all, Heisman's personal work, and is truly a suicide note, left to explain why he has chosen to off himself. It was as if he were trying to defend his own suicide, his own depression, by pulling off the ultimate act of human dignity: suicide by reason. He failed in this task, but instead showed us a remarkable view of his insecurities while creating a ludicrous synthesis of western thought that is, somehow, implicitly and explicitly, both parody and not parody.

Heisman's stated reason for killing himself are, essentially, that he wants to do an experiment. This experiment is seeing whether or not his book is stopped from being read- truth be told everybody can read it, and this is well-remarked upon in other places. But, that is not the reason he kills himself. The reason he kills himself is this hypothesis: if he wants to do the experiment truly objectively, then, he reasons, he must be dead because the fact that he is alive means he has tendencies to view the data in a subjective way. Furthermore, because he says Western thought is increasingly moving towards the abolishment of anthrocentrism, materialism means that whether or not he is alive does not matter.

Thereby, his suicide is the result of him trying to do this experiment subjectively.

Bullox. He gives, like a bad magician, away most of his secrets at the beginning and the end of the book. The rest is filler material. Heisman shows quickly that he is not psychologically healthy- despite having a degree in psychology. He has a desperate occupation with Judaism, despite being atheist, that stems from the early death of his father and the resulting mental isolation that resulted from the rest of the world. His chapter names, though funny, are meant to be both true and offensive. It speaks to an incredible narcissism- where he essentially states that none but he have been honest with themselves- that he seeks to both find followers and to offend in his death.

The actual content of the tomb is a sort of magnification of history that ultimately results in his experiment as the turning point. Firstly, we begin with his concentration on the battle of the "natural" versus the "unnatural." The natural is the biological, the unnatural is the technological. The first seeks its own survival, its own replenishment, while the latter does neither. It is, ultimately, suicidal. It is Heisman's own repetition of Singularity theory, and it is interlaced with Jewish commentary, which he obsesses over. He says that the Jews developed their own religion, which is inherently unnatural, inherently suicidal. This tendency was spread through mankind by Jesus, who himself was suicidal because of his own internal conflicts about his father. Indeed, Heisman uses psychoanalysis to present and accept, or at least flirt with the idea, that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier. The technology of religion, morphing into the unnatural sciences, will eventually result into a singularity, AI-God.

He then backs up, and begins tracing the lines of political powers. The Viking, the Saxons, and so on, to show that America, instead of being the battle ground of Whigs versus Tories, is actually the battle ground of Saxons versus Normans. Suicidal tendencies, once more, erupt in this center of the population, as they die for ideals and freedoms.

This summary does not do the Note any justice, however. The book is too large, too repetitive, and too unedited to really make a true dent into what Heisman is trying to say. He has paragraph after paragraph that rambles, repeating the same idea in different ways. His grammar, and, sometimes, his spellings, make no coherent effort in being true. He asks questions many times through the journey, and he never answers them. He makes us ask question, and those are not answered.

It seem that he killed himself so that, while he may not have attention in life, he may get attention in death. Well, I've obliged him.

This was not written by me …it was a review about his work which i thought fit perfect here

Author: Aaron Link: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/545069917
>>

 No.485134

is there anything like maxists org for modern authors. or modern marxists org

Unique IPs: 25
[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome