i wont answer off topic questions

Explain the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

what's the point of the concept of (LABOR THEORY OF) value if it fails at explaining shit like uncultivated land by just saying
>uh, it's simply this way, okay

>>24478043
Capital = constant capital (machines, stuff to be processed by workers, etc.) + variable capital (workers' wages). For Marx, labour produces more value than that covered by the wage's value (surplus-value). By exploiting labour, capital can gain value and valorize itself, grow bigger.

But capitalism being concurrential, capitalists must make ever more profit to stay in the race. To stay concurrential, a capitalist can sell at lower prices or extend workers' exploitation (by making the workday longer (absolute surplus-value) or making them more productive during the same time (relative surplus-value).

One way to stay concurrential is to use machines to replace human labour, so you save wages and make production even faster. But by doing so, capitalists lose the source of their surplus-value. Profit rate = investment value / surplus-value gained at the end. The more you cut your source of surplus-value, the more the profit rate falls. The more technology progresses, the more capitalism destroys itself and creates structural unemployment, among other things. that would be a simple presentation of the thing

>>24478066
i dont remember this sentence being in Capital

are the first three chapters worth skipping, i heard it gets better after them. what would i be missing if i do skip them

>>24478087
he calls it imaginary price-form, imaginary because it goes against his theory of value (which isn't price except that it is but not really)

>>24478093
You can read Capital the way you want, according to your interests. Chap1 might be the hardest of them all, so you can skip it at first and understand the rest. For exemple, you could completely start Capital volume 1 by its last chapter, which is an historical analysis of how capitalism became possible.

But chap1 still is one of the most, if not the most, important chapter. So you should still come back to it later when you feel ready. By skipping it, you miss the foundation of capitalist society, the primacy cell upon which it rests and that which is to be abolished under communism: value-form or commodity, and abstract labour

>>24478101
yeah value isnt price, a commodity has to be socially acknowledged as need-satisfying by the market and bought at a certain price so it realizes its value. Capital vol3 starts by explaining this transformation process if you want. And it's really not the problem bohm-bawerk created

>>24478113
thank maybe ill give it another try soon. i tried the first time with chapter 1, gave up, but then a professor assigned the mid book sections on primitive accumulation, and found it far easier to read and very interesting so been curious to try again

>>24478041 (OP)
Are you retarded?

>>24478041 (OP)
What's the question?

>>24478041 (OP)

How do you reconcile LTV with law of marginal utility?

>>24478041 (OP)
how did you get out of the locker, and do you intend to resist on your way back in?

>>24480504
Look up Analytical Marxism

>>24478138
I think that this is what confuses most people about Marx, trying to approach him without first fully coming to grips with his terms in proper context.

>>24480781
Or turning Marx into economics, when Marx was critiquing the economics of his day (and thus the historical context is more important). The foundations of his critique remain true today as the structures of capitalist business remain unchanged. Marx was never attempting to make an economic theory, he was attacking classical economics and its conceptions of price, value, and utility, and to understand him we must know what those conceptions were and then read Marx with a fresh mind, not equate his words with current economic concepts and immediately state that he was wrong.

>>24478041 (OP)
Did Marx truly believe that worker's states were not capable of being as efficient as capitalist states and would be completely outstripped by capitalism if there weren't enough of them to still provide enough of the essential commodities for society?
Also good answers so far mate

>>24478041 (OP)
Whh bother?

>>24478041 (OP)
>i wont answer off topic questions
Ok. Why are you such a fag?

>>24478041 (OP)
How is the book relevant in today’s society, and how the individual employee nowadays can use the book for their own advantage and minimize their exploitation by the employer?

>>24478041 (OP)
How does Marxism prevent bad actors from expropriating stuff that people legitimately earned by claiming that those people have some historical or systemic privilege?

How important is a critique of capitalism if alternative solutions always seems far worse in comparison or not good enough?

>>24484249
How important is a critique of feudal manorialism if the alternatives solutions always seem for worse in comparison or not good enough?

>>24484254
Not important at all.

>>24478041 (OP)
influential but most ideas within are retarded

>>24484708
can you give a few examples

>>24484055
Introducing labor theory of value, your grandfather did the work of ten generations of bureocrats for example

>>24484739
labour theory of value
and
surplus value theory

>>24484756
How are those ideas retarded?

>>24478041 (OP)
What did the japanese marxist economists develop that distinguishes them from the rest

Value is not derived from labor. Units of labor are not commensurable because labor is radically heterogeneous. Socially necessary labor time is arbitrary and a cope. Mises and Hayek destroyed the viability of Socialist economics with their gakes on the Economic Calculation Problem.

It's over and its been over for over a century.

>>24484756
>labour theory of value
can you name one example?
something that has value that didnt come from nature and didnt arise from labour? can you think of something that requires a ton of labour to produce but is also very cheap?

>surplus value theory
so where does the profit margin go? after everything has been paid for and you have capital (aka value) left over, do you call it surplus? does your boss then take that surplus as his own wage?
how can you say either of those ideas are retarded lol, they are incredibly simple to grasp

>>24484882
>they are incredibly simple to grasp
most fallacies are, that's why people keep falling for them

>>24484882
>can you think of something that requires a ton of labour to produce but is also very cheap?
self published slop on amazon

>>24484888
i noticed you didnt have any arguments for why they are wrong

>>24484892
they are done as hobbies and doesnt disprove labour theory of value
anyway i think i mistyped and its supposed to be something expensive that costs very little labour

>>24484742
Short quips typed in a hurry dont help. Explain yourself further. Here's an example. Me and 3 generations prior to me worked hard in a socialist manner to create a decent living for us. We have some personal luxuries like a car, but do not have sole ownership of the means of production i.e. private property.
After much archaeological, anthropolog cal and historical research, it was found that my 15th generation ancestors (along with the ancestors of others living nearby) had kept the ancestors of people living in a town nearby as slaves.
Hence me and others living here have a historical and possibly had a systemic advantage in the past.
Will everything I worked for be taken away and redistributed to those in the nearby town now?
Where does one draw the line whe comparing historic advantage? 3 generatfons prior? 10?
What about those who are looking for any excuse (espicially one backed by archaeology, historical records, etc) to justify taking your stuff? Or even making up some perceived persecution in the past?

>>24484900
>worked hard in a socialist manner
meaningless
>do not have sole ownership of the means of production
you arent a capitalist then, you wouldnt have it expropriated
>ancestors kept people as slaves, i had advantages
irrelevant

>Will everything I worked for be taken away and redistributed
no, you admittedly dont own the means of production

>historic advantage
exactly as many generations as it takes to expropriate the means of production

>justify taking your shit
wont happen


you dont know what commies really want, and commies arent the same as the "woke" people you see with trans flags

>>24484896
>i noticed you didnt have any arguments for why they are wrong
take some economics, finance, and management classes, preferably at the graduate level

>>24484760
>>24484882
>labour theory of value
the value of a good or service is decided by the people who purchase it not by how much labour went into making or providing it

>surplus value theory
the worker is not entitled to the "surplus" value of their work
the "surplus" value pays the entrepreneur for taking on the risks of producing the good
if you are displeased with this you can go and make goods on your own but you didn't and instead decided to work for someone

>>24484920
not to mention some of the "surplus value" goes to the customer otherwise they will buy from a competitor who offers more value

>>24484916
>you dont know what commies really want, and commies arent the same as the "woke" people you see with trans flags
Im not against 'woke' or trans people. I had a question, asked it and got my answer.
I take it that inheritance of personal property is allowed (like a collection of books), but not of private property (like farmland or factories)? Where does a house fall? I can put a house for rent and make bourgeoise money or I can stay in it. Is it inheritable?

>>24484917
>>>still no arguments. "just go indoctrinate yourself, bro"


>>24484920
the price can never be below the labour price though, and if someone tries to price the good/service too high someone will undercut them and then youll get a "falling rate of profit". google the term. the price trends to exactly what the labour costs are plus a tiny surplus

>surplus pays for the risk
this is a cope
if an entrepreneur has a good idea its not a risk right? and do you think that only people with the upfront capital should be allowed to take risks? that they are the only people with good ideas?
dont you think its likely that there have been a million steve jobs and bill gates that never got to take the risk (meaning using the means of production to make their idea a reality)?

>make goods on your own
i do make goods on my own, but i dont own the means of production so my boss ends up getting half of the value i produce
do you mean i should seize the means of production? interesting idea


>>24484924
holy retardation, you dont even know what the terms mean

>>24484943
yes, you can keep your personal property. no one is putting the effort in to going around and taking everyones books and iphones
if your house produces capital (think exclusively renting it out), then yes it will be taken in the ideal commie world. if you live in it then yes youll keep living in it. obviously factories and farmland get expropriated and used for the better good of the country/community

>>24484945
it's so obvious you don't have the slightest idea how the economy or business works, but i guess that's why you fell for marxism

>no u have to use jargon the way marx defined it even tho he's stupid
entrepreneurs create value above the cost of the inputs, it gets split between going to customers and the investors

>>24484945
>the price can never be below the labour price though,
it can because there's no labour price
(besides official contracts where minimal wage is enforced) the value of someone's labour is decided by how much people wish to pay for it

>if an entrepreneur has a good idea its not a risk right?
>economical downturns don't exist
>crime doesn't exist
>factors outside of a humans control don't exist
did you even read what you wrote?
risk is inherent
just be trying to start a business or thinking about starting one you are using your time and thus risking it because there's no guarantee of payoff

>and do you think that only people with the upfront capital should be allowed to take risks?
seeing as only people with capital (be it money or land or product) can take risks by starting businesses then yes

>i do make goods on my own
>so my boss
you don't make goods on your own them
you make them for someone else using their things and you get paid in return

>>24484960
>entrepreneurs create value above the cost of the inputs
how? by hiring people to do it for them?

>surplus is split between customers
how can the surplus be split and go to the customers? thats the same argument as >>24484924. its just not possible by definition. theres no surplus value created by offering a good/service at cost, its only when you go over the cost that theres a surplus but then that surplus can never go to the customers (unless theres some imaginary surplus that never existed because you decided to sell at x and not x+1???)
>hur dur its obwious you dont have the swightest idea how ecowomy works

>and investors
in the ideal world these investors would be the community at large

>>24484945
>if an entrepreneur has a good idea its not a risk right?
Wrong. Reality is not like playing sim city. You're assuming that problems, errors, misaligned incentives, and other things that go wrong don't exist. Things don't manifest perfectly simply because they're a good idea. It's a good idea to plant 100 trees that average 20 apple. That doesn't mean you're going to always get 2000 apples every harvest.

>>24484980
>in the ideal world these investors would be the community at large
yeah it's called a 401k, tard

>>24484945
>do you mean i should seize the means of production?
What if I seize the means of production you seized? Nothin personnel kid heh *tips fedora*

>>24484980
>theres no surplus value created by offering a good/service at cost, its only when you go over the cost that theres a surplus but then that surplus can never go to the customers
lmao clueless

>>24484980
>in the ideal world these investors would be the community at large
You can get something without the risk of an investment up front, it's called buying things.

>>24484979
>there's no labour price
wdym? clearly labour costs something
do you mean no set defined price? doesnt the market have a set price for a set of skills? i dont understand what you mean

>economic downturns
these would be much more minor under a more controlled economy, and the leftover "risk" applies to below paragraph

>other risks
in the ideal world wouldnt these factors just be swallowed up by the averages of macroeconomics? why should one person take all that risk? commies just want it all divided evenly

>the world is as it is because that is the way it should be. it should never get better
kek

>i make goods for someone else
yes i make goods for someone else, obviously. i cook 20 steaks and a hundred eggs a day, do you think thats all for me (kidding)? what right does my boss have to take half the value, thats the part you all dont understand. either he got a bank or a group of people to invest in him and somehow they trusted him. he doesnt run the place perfectly. hes fired good coworkers. without him in the picture the place would run smoother, he also wouldnt be there skimming the coffers. i promise you that every business is the same

>>24484984
see above

>>24484991
>everyone has the same 401k investments, including all the workers overseas. no worker has ever been homeless or living in poverty
i wish

>>24484994
realistically we would be seizing it together, but i know you arent serious

>>24484996
how does it work? i dont understand the point
maybe im missing something there but i dont think so

>>24485021
>do you mean no set defined price?
yes
>doesnt the market have a set price for a set of skills?
no, the price is defined on an individual basis

>these would be much more minor under a more controlled economy,
yeah there can't be an economic downturn if there's no economy lmao

>in the ideal world wouldnt these factors just be swallowed up by the averages of macroeconomics?
no
while on car factory burning down doesn't spell the end for car prodcution
a bakery burning down when it's the only one in a small town isvery bad
>why should one person take all that risk?
because you need someone to run the business
without a profit incentive nothing gets made

>either he got a bank or a group of people to invest in him and somehow they trusted him.
or he saved up
either way he took on risk
>he doesnt run the place perfectly
no one could and he still runs it better than the state would
>hes fired good coworkers.
it's his business and he can do whatever he wants
>without him in the picture the place would run smoother
it certainly wouldn't
and without him there wouldn't be a place or business in the first place
>he also wouldnt be there skimming the coffers
not what he's doing

>what right does my boss have to take half the value, thats the part you all dont understand.
it's what you don't understand
he started the business (spent time on everything needed for it)
he bought the equipment
he bought/rents the space
he buys the ingredients/components
he hires people and pays them every month
he deals with everything needed to run it

and again if it's so bad why don't you start a business yourself

>>24485021
>everything would just work and risk wouldn't bee a problem because it would work in the ideal world
Come on man.

>>24485021
>something something ideal world
communism doesn't work even in an ideal world lmao

this discussion has nothing to do with anything in capital
so braindead

>>24485021
>realistically we would be seizing it together, but i know you arent serious
Why? Why wouldn't I want to own the means of production myself? Because someone like you is going to threaten to seize it otherwise?

>>24478043
>Profit high
>People see high profit
>People move capital in to capture some profit
>They must undercut the prices to get any profit
>Profit falls as more and more capital undercut each other
The corollary being that monopolies don't have decreasing profits.

>>24484879
>Mises and Hayek
They got BTFO by the fact that literally every developed nation on Earth has adopted Keynesian principles, and that Keynesian principles are so powerful that any country that doesn't, gets dominated by those who do.

>>24485547
Hell ya dude. We've keynes ourselves right into world War 3. It's been a godsend

>>24485568
Bruh, if you can't separate decade long trends from what is happening in this exact moment in time, I can't help you. Also, it's unlikely a world war will result from the Israel and Iran conflict.

>>24485584
>Also, it's unlikely a world war will result from the Israel and Iran conflict
OK bro

>>24485547
>retarded economic is le good actually because it hasn't blown everything up yet

>gunpowder barrels being on fire are a good thing because they haven't exploded yet

>>24485594
The kind of fiscal austerity advocated by Mises and Hayek invariably cripple a nation and extend recessions. The historical record is crystal clear, Keynes has been more then vindicated on this point and the Austrian school has been thoroughly repudiated.

>>24485612
Isn't it more like economics and mankind has been refuted? Bc
>The kind of fiscal austerity advocated by Mises and Hayek invariably cripple a nation and extend recessions.
Yeah true. That's also keynes to the letter too though.

>>24478041 (OP)
How does complex labour decompose into simple labour with relation to skill and class warfare. Answer in relation to mariners.

>>24478081
>concurrential
You're french.

>>24484920
>if you are displeased with this you can go and make goods on your own but you didn't and instead decided to work for someone
True. Why didn't these Polynesian sweatshop workers ask their dad for a small loan of a million dollars to start their real estate empire like I did?

>>24485070
Neither does capitalism either lmao. The economy is constantly in a boom/bust cycle and would implode if it didn't forcibly get saved by governments to prevent it from imploding because it's inherently unsustainable. Not to mention the environmental disasters it's directly causing.

If only gullible retards would stop pretending that true capitalism has never been attempted, blaming all the constant and innate failures of capitalism on "cronies".

>>24485768
Communist Russia collapsed. Log off bro