How does Marx's ideas translate to a service based economy?

How does Marx's ideas translate to a service based economy?

He said that the worker becomes alienated from the product of their labor, but how does that apply when that product is intangible? A waitress needs to exist, because the chef can't run back and forth from the kitchen to the floor to serve the food they're busy making, but the waitress doesn't produce anything, unless you count customer experience.

It becomes condensed to its most sincere form: A self-destructive non-productive mentality which rejects profit and demands free services.

It doesn't, Marx belongs in the trash and his followers into the gas chamber.

>his followers into the gas chamber

That's an awful thing to say. We shouldn't commit genocide. Just give them their own country and they'll all kill themselves eventually.

What's the difference?

Money and manpower.

One weighs on your consciousness and causes bleeding hearts to cry how they might have been right.

The other is hilarious and causes bleeding hearts to shut the fuck up or attempt to justify it.

/thread

>How does Marx's ideas translate to

Why is Marx held to this ridiculous standard where he has to have 20/20 future vision and his writing is comprehensive and covers every possible thing, or else he's 100% wrong?

Every single other significant and influential economist (except Keynes maybe, because butt hurt Austrians) is not expected to get everything right 100% of the time (again except Austrians because most of them are megautists and if they were wrong, it's somehow because minarchy/ancap doesn't exist). It's not even expected that their approach would be applicable today. What's important is that they introduced a novel concept that caused a paradigm shift upon which others built on, further developed, refined and updated. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that.

Marx explicity deals with this in theories of surplus value. To reduce alienation to physical product shows complete ignorance of his value theory

Communists will always have the "but communism can't work if any capitalist countries still exist" excuse

>Why is Marx held to this ridiculous standard where he has to have 20/20 future vision and his writing is comprehensive and covers every possible thing, or else he's 100% wrong?

Because no other economist comes up with pseudoscience bullshit such as alienation.

1) Marxism is not self altering. It is a finished product and while it can be polished in some areas as far as application it cannot be altered in any significant way.

2) Marxism puts forth a number of normative statements. Because of this and the above, any accusation of Marx being incorrect is an accusation of his works being immoral. Because Marxism posits that Marxism is the most moral thing this obviously cannot be true under Marxism and as such under Marxism Marxism can never be immoral.

If Marxists were less autistic we wouldn't have this issue, but then if they were less autistic they wouldn't be Marxists in the first place.

It applies the same way.

How much is the product sold for? That is how much the labour is worth. Then negotiations start about how much of it was thanks to capital.

In the case of food, it may be argued that cooks get more than wait-staff, but they're all cooperating in producing one product, the dining experience as a whole. You can go places without wait-staff to get the food and nothing else, if you want. If you say the wait-staff aren't materially contributing to the product, you're already alienating them from their efforts.

And capitalists will always have the 'it's not true capitalism' argument, when asked why the government helps them out so much, or why there is a problem of poverty. This is a good or bad thing depending on the argument they're trying to win that day.

I don't know about Marx, but Sorel said that the economy should benefit the producers rather than the consumers.

What did he mean by this?

>A waitress needs to exist

I know this is somewhat besides the point, but does a waitress really *need* to exist? Can't people get their own silverware and operate a soda fountain on their own?

Once all labor is done by robots, we won't have to worry.

Because Marx's followers insist that he did have 20/20 future vision and that his writing was comprehensive and covers every possible thing.

You STILL have neo-marxists who deny marginalism, or try to make the LTV work.

you should count the customer experience. it's part of the product you're getting. the waitress has to provide a certain atmosphere at the restaurant they work at. it's even compensated on the final reciept as a tip.

>implying services didn't exist in Marx's time

think of the way the economy is organized today. businesses try to drive down labor cost as much as possible so that the final cost of goods at the market is cheap for the consumer. making the economy benefit the producers would mean compensating the producers more for their labor, and consequently, raising the prices of products for consumers.

since the producers are the consumers of society, it makes not much difference though.

How do Marxists would react when the means of production are done by robots.

they're happy, because humans no longer have to spend time doing dull tasks any more.

based user

Austrians lmao

>self altering
Neither is anything else

>It is a finished product and while it can be polished in some areas as far as application it cannot be altered in any significant way.
Just keep making shit up. Modern economics is a synthesis of ideas that disregard a shitload of the original author's intents.

>Marxism puts forth a number of normative statements. Because of this and the above, any accusation of Marx being incorrect is an accusation of his works being immoral. Because Marxism posits that Marxism is the most moral thing this obviously cannot be true under Marxism and as such under Marxism Marxism can never be immoral.
It's like you haven't even read Marx and don't realize what an impact Stirner had on Marx in making him abandon moralistic utopian socialism.

>If Marxists were less autistic we wouldn't have this issue, but then if they were less autistic they wouldn't be Marxists in the first place.
Austrians are at least as autistic, but I'll give you that, most Marxists are autistic.

>Because Marx's followers insist that he did have 20/20 future vision and that his writing was comprehensive and covers every possible thing.
Nice strawman.

>You STILL have neo-marxists who deny marginalism, or try to make the LTV work.
Labor exploitation still works with marginalism. It's just makes it more difficult to calculate the degree of exploitation. Labor exploitation actually has very little to do with LTV, LTV was just the prevailing theory of value when Marx wrote.

But the robots are owned by the capitalists. Your labor will be worth less than the upkeep of a robot, meaning you have nothing to exchange with the capitalist for goods.

The plebs starve, thus achieving communist utopia.

Only commodity-producing labor is 'productive'; all other sectors of the economy are parasitic on industrial labor.

But the most sincere condensed form of capitalism is a destructive sociopathic mentality which demands free profit for no service or product.

>not true capitalism

Literally only Austrotards do this so nice strawman