Hehe dude what if we just share everything

why are all lolbertarians jews?

>Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is
useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates
no value.

The value of a product comes from the socially necessary labor-time needed to produce it.

OUR

Marxism is a materialist methodology that thinks that socialism, and later communism, will naturally develop out of changes in technology that will allow for more efficient and intentional production methods.

Socialism has existed since the French Revolution and the concepts of land reform and wealth redistribution clearly much earlier in various forms.

Leninism, Stalinism and Trotskyism are all different applications of Marxism but all grow out of shared assumptions that socialism could be imposed on the apparati of Russian state they had captured, which meant defending that state and putting down workers that disagreed with its direction under the premise that objections to authoritarianism was a moralism unrelated to the material circumstances the Bolsheviks were trying to establish. I think this was a huge mistake because Marxism for all its technicality and materialism is based on moralistic assumptions about human worth that leads it to condemn exploitation and alienation. People mistake the materialism of Marx as a perfect opposition to idealism which is how you get bullshit like "the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism". If Marxism were truly trying to be a perfect material science it wouldnt presuppose the necessity of a better world. Marx never opposes ideals and ideology, he just claims that any proper analysis needs to recognize that ideals grow from material relations, not imposed from outside.

Interestingly for this reason the Chinese Communist Party arent hypocrites at all, they see themselves as allowing the productive forces of capital expansion to set up an advanced infrastructure that can carry them to socialism as Marx described.

Tho I am a leftist I try to have some distance and dont feel the need to unilaterally condemn or praise any of these movements. I think its interesting that China is able to so well justify their capitalism with a consistent reading of Marx and I think that says something about the limits of Marxism.

This
Socialism was born as a political force before the French Revolution

>I think its interesting that China is able to so well justify their capitalism with a consistent reading of Marx and I think that says something about the limits of Marxism.
>2017
>not knowing every socialist state needs a great share of capitalist economy inside in order to survive

and how did they call it back then?

>I think its interesting that China is able to so well justify their capitalism with a consistent reading of Marx and I think that says something about the limits of Marxism.
because China was a feudal country under Marx's definition. They needed to become capitalist to create the material conditions for socialism to arise

In what case did this "Capitalistic society becomes Socialistic"-idea even happen?

never unless you count East Germany and PR Czechoslovakia as being socialist

Why is every other Veeky Forums thread about Marxism or Nazis

WEALTH

because those topics create the ideal balance between legitimate discussion and meme spamming

Except Marx's LTV was more Ricardo than Smith, the latter (properly, I might say) not really caring for more than a cursory treatment of value theory. It generates irredeemable autism on both sides of the political spectrum.

It's worth noting that, while still not on par with the west, east germany and czechslovakia produced the best consumer goods in the entire eastern bloc.

I really really like this picture

no it doesn't. Value only exists in the human's employ. It's an artifact of subjectove experience. Were there no people then manufactured goods would have no value. Value is a function of how much a person wants something versus how difficult it is to obtain. Market value is a weighted average of the summation of individual values (where weights are the individual's ability to pay for the item).

Were there no people there would be no socially-necessary labour-time, bruv.

Is gold valuable? Is heroin valuable? Is nature valuable? Is a sunset valuable?

Things are valuable to you when you value them. They're valuable to you when you like them. Labor has nothing to do with value directly. It only effects the difficulty of obtaining the valued object. Socially necessary is a spook. Such a category cannot be determined crisply. It has no real meaning that allows it to be used for anything in the real world. Value comes from people's desires, not work. Work is done to fufill the people's desires.

Marx writes about commodities, aka reproducible goods.

Supposed you are stranded in an island. You can produce yourself objects A and B. A is much more subjectively valuable than B to you, but takes a lot less time to make. Would you rather lose your object A or B?

Depends on the relation between its utility and the *overall* cost of making it, not just labor

Not really. The utility is irrelevant (as long as it exists) because you can just reproduce it. Losing A is objectively worse.
The thing is that marx explained this like shit because he had the continental disease of obscurantist writing that he inherited from hegel.

B*

This situation is too abstract to give a meaningful answer to. Construct a thought experiment that addresses the real world.

>is a wealthy burgueoise
>made up a bunch of shit about the lower classes rising against the upper classes
>even though no lower class person has ever started a revolution or movement of any kind, it's all the work of educated middle or upper class citizens
marx was an autistic LARPer

If A is more subjectively valuable then by definition you would choose to have A over B even though your reasoning is likely irrational. Your definition of value makes no sense.

Yugoslavia was something of an industrial powerhouse for a while too, at least on the Dalmatian coast.

It's an economist fetish to make robinson crusoey examples. The example is pretty concrete though.

>If A is more subjectively valuable then by definition you would choose to have A over B
The point of the example is to explain how subjective values in terms of the object's material utility doesn't (necessarily) determine what marx would call exchange value (meaning that it is determined by the production side). So, no, you can't reach a tautological answer "by definition".

There are deep issues with the LTV but people who dismiss Marx as retarded are simply ignorant brainlets themselves. Read Eugen Böhm von Bawerk's takedown of Marx's LTV if you genuinely care.

here:
mises.org/library/karl-marx-and-close-his-system

But your example doesn't prove your point though. There is no exchange value with an isolated person on an island. Only subjective value. If a person values one item more than another then they by definition will choose that item over another. Value is determined by what a person does, not what they say. Exchange values are often similarly irrational. Bitcoin spin-offs are often extremely valuable despite taking almost no human work to make and having literally no social utility by the amorphous definition given. The sheer fact that prices behave the way they do in the real world is refutation of the labor theory of value, unless your definition of value does not have anything to do with what people are willing to pay for an item in which case it is arbitrary and useless to matters concerning the real world.

>who dismiss Marx as retarded are simply ignorant brainlets themselves

t. marxist brainlet

They are valuable to me, especially the socially-necessary labour-time imbued in them. The last bit tho, lol buddy I don't pay to watch the sunset.

>suggests an austrian economist
>he must be a marxist brainlet!
r u srs

do you think currency rates and bubbles didn't exist in Marx's time? Hell, I think he actually made a living reporting stock market prices for the newspapers at one point.

Socialism predates Marx. Some of the early attempts at socialism influenced Marx.

the value of buttcoin is literally tied to the amount of work people put into mining it, shilling it and supporting it

>There is no exchange value with an isolated person on an island.
Irrelevant, considering which one he would rather "lose" is the equivalent to considering which one he would "value" (in terms of exchange value) less in a trade.

>If a person values one item more than another then they by definition will choose that item over another
But that is incorrect. If he can produce faster the object he values more, it would be irrational to prefer losing the object he values less. If you are saying that that would imply that he actually values the latter more, you are implying that value is determined by production (and are mixing exchange and use value) and agree with marx.

>Bitcoin (...)
Cryptocurrencies are non reproducible goods. Except in the sense that you can mine them, but buying them at a higher price than what it would take you to mine the equivalent would be irrational, even if you "value" them more. Then again, I'm no expert on the subject.

>The sheer fact that prices behave the way they do in the real world is refutation of the labor theory of value
The ltov is unfalsifiable.

>unless your definition of value does not have anything to do with what people are willing to pay for an item in which case it is arbitrary and useless
There is a utility value that goes beyond exchange value, sure. I don't value chocolate in terms of its utility because I don't like it, but that doesn't mean I can't sell it.

Not that user but
>calling someone linking to Böhm Bawerk a marxist
Confirmed brainlet.

>But that is incorrect. If he can produce faster the object he values more,
No you fucking autist your definition of abstract value without connection to anything other than arbitrary traits is the problem. Labor value is ephemeral. It has no actual bearing on the real world. The labor theory of value is saying "this is what the value ought to be" and ignoring how people actually value an item in practice. LTV is a work of philosophy while exchange value is product of empirical observation.

I didn't greentext enough and wasn't really clear sorry.

>But that is incorrect. If he can produce faster the object he values more, it would be irrational to prefer losing the object he values less

This is the only factor given to compare the two hypothetical objects with. Scarcity is part of the function of value but labor is hardly the only factor affecting scarcity. There is more to how people view items than the labor that went into making them goddamnit.

>No you fucking autist your definition of abstract value without connection to anything other than arbitrary traits is the problem.
I don't know why you get mad at me referring to subjective value. I'm pretty sure it's the concept you are defending. You do know that to austrian or neoclassical economists people have a subjective value that isn't equivalent to the price of a commodity right? Is it an "abstract value without connection to anything other than arbitrary traits"?

>There is more to how people view items than the labor that went into making them goddamnit.
Not in the example, at least in relation to its exchange value.

Could anyone tell me the difference between Trotskyism and Stalinism and why the followers o the two started killing each other?

Just chiming in to say that le Primitive-slavery-feudalism-capitalism-socialism-communism autistic railroad of history is BS since i know that's what you're trying to imply.

>Value only exists in the human's employ
>Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.

Take useless here to mean "without someone to find it of use" you daft cunt

that isnt what i was trying to imply tho, im not a marxist even but dismissive oversimplifications of marx help no ond

>it generates irredeemable autism

keked, nice choice of words

Hack writer hired along with Engels by the Illuminati to write about a perfect totalitarian socialist world order where people are no better than animals.

whatever the lowest opportunity cost is
we discussed this in economy class

The ideological answer is "Permanent Revolution vs Socialism in One Country."
Trotsky wanted to put all their efforts into supporting foreign revolutionaries to flip other countries and achieve a global communist takeover or close enough, while Stalin figured they must turn the Soviet Union into a strong bulwark against capitalism and expand their influence more carefully and securely. There were both theoretical arguments and realpolitikal arguments for/against the two approaches.

The actual answer is "power struggle between Stalin and Trotsky."