Find 1 (one) error in any of the three volumes of Marx's Das Kapital.
You can't.
Find 1 (one) error in any of the three volumes of Marx's Das Kapital.
You can't.
Maybe, but Stirner eternally btfo communism anyway and make Marx throw a Tanty.
communism doesnt work dumbass
Real communism has never been tried :)
FULLY
AUTOMATED
LUXURY
COMMUNISM
Has any country called itself "communist" to begin with? The Soviets made a point out of not doing so so they would have something to promise for the future.
He never once comes up with a solution for me to get a girlfriend.
At least in capitalism there's a slim chance I can be richer than Chad
Kinda wish he never wrote the manifesto so that people could really appreciate the well thought criticism in Das Kapital. As of now, even in this thread there will be people talking about communisn and revolution, conflating his other works with this one (that should be a staple of both Left and Right leaning thinkers really).
No marginal value
Capital is primarily Marx's analysis of the capitalist mode of production. He doesn't really go into the details about communism in it.
>tfw when you realize that the fact that polposters -- ironic or unironic -- don't use the part in the manifesto about introducing "community of women" to call leftists cucks is an example of how little Veeky Forums reads
>Marx’s dark prophecy came no closer to being realized than Ricardo’s. In the last third of the nineteenth century, wages finally began to increase: the improvement in the purchasing power of workers spread everywhere, and this changed the situation radically, even if extreme inequalities persisted and in some respects continued to increase until World War I. The communist revolution did indeed take place, but in the most backward country in Europe, Russia, where the Industrial Revolution had scarcely begun, whereas the most advanced European countries explored other, social democratic avenues—fortunately for their citizens. Like his predecessors, Marx totally neglected the possibility of durable technological progress and steadily increasing productivity, which is a force that can to some extent serve as a counterweight to the process of accumulation and concentration of private capital. He no doubt lacked the statistical data needed to refine his predictions. He probably suffered as well from having decided on his conclusions in 1848, before embarking on the research needed to justify them. Marx evidently wrote in great political fervor, which at times led him to issue hasty pronouncements from which it was difficult to escape. That is why economic theory needs to be rooted in historical sources that are as complete as possible, and in this respect Marx did not exploit all the possibilities available to him.8 What is more, he devoted little thought to the question of how a society in which private capital had been totally abolished would be organized politically and economically—a complex issue if ever there was one, as shown by the tragic totalitarian experiments undertaken in states where private capital was abolished.
-Piketty
I look forward to the neo-marxists prophesying the fall of capitalism getting blown out by unlimited growth due to automation and AI - the eradication of the proletariat for better or worse.
Dialectics
LTV
Tendency of falling rate of profit
That's because almost nobody except has actually read Das Kapital in its entirety.
You say that but i see young people reading it all the time. You're out of touch with your peers because you spend all day on Veeky Forums.
...
...
Get on my level
>4 different leninists being leninists
wow, I guess socialism fails whatever angle of it you try
Every one of those is either a communist movement that never gained traction, or a communist movement that failed as bad as the other ones but is just well known.
I love when leftist ideologues memorialize allende, but say nothing about the economic results of his short tenure
H-he just never got to build his Star Trek spaceship
The United States was actively sabotaging the country.
Marginal Utility.
that was easy.
pic related
nice go-to excuse for X leftist regime
yeah because he was actively sabotaging the US's investments.
Marx completely ignores major social factors.
Like what?
>man is defined by his work
>we should create a society where everything is so efficient that we don't have to work
ok
see
>What is more, he devoted little thought to the question of how a society in which private capital had been totally abolished would be organized politically and economically—a complex issue if ever there was one, as shown by the tragic totalitarian experiments undertaken in states where private capital was abolished.
wasn't he calling the bourgeois cucks in that section though?
Like leisure
What is more, he this infuriates the marxist ignores basic human nature: greed, lust for power, disdain for perceived lessers.
he completely reduced alienation to mere economic factors, rather than social, cultural, and political forces.
Not to mention pure existencial dread
10/10
>bourgeois are bad because they're a leisure class
>we should turn the whole planet into a single leisure class
??
do you have a single fact to back that up?
Bourgeois being 'bad' isn't a Marxist idea, thats just millenia of working class envy showing itself.
No legit communist suggests transitioning to a leisure society, that is a delusional projection by crypto-protestant liberals.
there's a way out of that.
Repressing the most basic aspects of Human nature results in the documented experiments that Communism has shown to be.
There are several. Insert images of everyone from Sartre to Rumi here.
>For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
>Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.
>Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
yeah, in short, he was saying they're both cucks.
I'm not communist, and you have no proof of calling those emotions merely "basic." I could easily claim altruism, and courage are part of human nature.
>history, human society and language all arise from the division of labor
>we'll stop that division of labor shit ASAP
???
>Dude just make up your own meaning lmao
>materialists ignore greed
>millenia
capitalism isn't even that old
>dude just don't read Nietzsche and spout memes about him lmao
????
Nietzsche is nothing but memes
>tfw Leftist who hates nearly every Leftist you see
You'd indeed know, as your exposure to him begins and ends with Veeky Forums memes.
The need to strive and competition between males is not a basic instinct?
I seriously hope you're not implying that.
>
This is how anyone who subscribes to and is well read on any political position feels.
>pick uo Geneology of Morals
>starts talking about magic Dragons and shit
I'll stick with memes bud
Yeah, you do that.
the premise
If it is then why do I stay at home masturbating everyday?
Mutual aid. And there's more than one type of competition. In fact, competition doesn't necessitate greed as you'd think, nor can you make an apriori connection to it.
ebin, bud I prefer my own thinkers.
Class structure existed before capitalism you dingbat.
Because you've been defeated ; you've given up. And this is good: the weak and the sick should stay indoors, as to alleviate the world from their sight.
>bud
*but, I had sausage fingers for a moment.
Who is that turbokike?
>If it is then why do I stay at home masturbating everyday?
Because you know you have no hope of finding a mate.
>Mutual aid. And there's more than one type of competition. In fact, competition doesn't necessitate greed as you'd think, nor can you make an apriori connection to it.
You're wrong, we instinctively compete to find the best mate we can with the purpose of breeding. Every decision a non Nihilistic person makes is to strive and stand on top of the mediocre masses.
Ok, now tell me what you really think
>Mutual aid
The is the funniest thing I've read so far.
Rothbard.
>evolutionary theory is funny
okay, so you admit to being retarded. Well I'm glad the conversation is over.
Pretty sad that you think this, especially since mutual aid was one of the tenets that the United States was built upon, and that which committed most to it's growth as a fair and egalitarian society.
>Evolution
>Helping the weak strive
Can you both stop being retarded, evolution produced both ant colonies and great white sharks. Stop acting like we have to essentialize nature into predicting an economic system
the labor theory of value is descriptively false, even if you take the more sophisticated "current socially necessary labor-time" version
Marx failed to properly grasp or expose the full historicity of quantitative abstract labour... the centrality of labour is exactly what constitutes capitalism: all human relations being reduced to mere quantitative productive relations and nature being transformed into a standing reserve for commodity production.
In Capital there was a latent move towards trying to understand all historical societies (future and past) as they are determined by the abstract algebraic formula (S'/V+C), their breakdown and reconstitution. That's not possible, capitalist accumulation is a specific form of human society, this has to be situated within the grander empirical setting of the issue of rent, which he failed at doing properly in volume 3.
A phenomenology of rent, that is an actual reconstruction of the logic of rent as a historical process in its full dynamics can essiently serve as postscript of sorts to all human development.
Marginalism uses individual psychological desires to explain demand for goods and the given supply of labour which produced the demanded goods. All you do here is shift the focus toward a demand side explanation of supply, demand and price as opposed to the supply side explanation rooted in the actual production process provided by the LTV. The LTV never neglected individual consumer preference but it was always secondary to the more fundamental important qualitative dynamics of supply.
When prices change, it's generally true, that the quantity of demand/supply also changes but that doesn't actually explain why prices actually initially change, supply is always changing as a result of developments in technology/natural science (outside of the domain of analysis of "economics" as a strictly formal mathematical affair) and changes in the quantity of time necessary to produce a given quantity of goods.
The entire logical edifice is built on the presupposition that people always try to "maximize utility" but I could just as easily presuppose people attempt to "minimize disutility" and present an explanation of all economic phenomena on that basis.
I am not claiming marginal utility is totally wrong because you can draw some pretty curves to prove pretty much anything you want with it. ;)
income, and not ownership of of the means of production, is how society is divided in the west.
the proletarian class is also becoming increasingly irrelevant due to to robotics. They are more a burden than a source of wealth.
Marxs whole work was a critique of the classical economists conception of the LTV and is entirely premised on the law of value having to breakdown. I would say this did in fact happen in the 1930s i.e. the first measures Roosevelt implemented to end the Great Depression was called the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933, when Roosevelt simply stepped in, purchased all the excess crops and destroyed them to support crop prices. The second example was Executive Order 6102, where, to reduce wages in a comprehensive fashion, rather than slashing them factory by factory, Roosevelt simply devalued the currency from $20.67 to $35, where they stayed until the United States debased the currency altogether in 1971 by the fascistic Nixon administration when it got off the gold standard:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
His mistake was assuming an emancipatory socialism would emerge instead of a violent statist regulatory corporate liberalism.
Today we can clearly see freedom isn't NECESSARY [in the sense classical german idealism conceptualized necessity] (technological development doesn't guarantee freedom, it's enslaving us more in new ways) nor is history NECESSARILY rational.
If abstract labour isn't abolished production will destroy itself... the petro economy will either disappear [climate change] or be destroyed [politicans, CEOs, etc killed in mass]. Capitals automation is making proletarians, with the capacity of an expansive awareness, disappear. But even a "societal collapse" resulting from dramatic climatic change offers a window of emancipatory change, marauding stateless gangs organized on democratic principles could be the agents of revolution.
Yes?
>a fair and egalitarian society.
The whole idea that capitalism would eventually develop into socialism by means of the materialist dialectic. Over a century later and capitalism is stronger than ever, and it's antithetical alternatives have got weaker not stronger.
Taytay is an egalitarian in the bed if you know what I mean
>build a ethical socialist state
>the US sabotages you, you fail as a result
>tards on Veeky Forums mocks you
>build a pragmatic socialist state
>the US sabotages you
>you take harsh, highly unethical countermeasures in order to resist this attack
>wooow, see??? socialism always degenerates into dictatorship!!!!
^ideology
Because it's usually true.
I say usually because sometimes it was the Soviet Union doing the sabotaging.
There's gotta be some kinda mirror-world naivety where you reduce everyone and everything down to your favourite negative traits.
Not an argument.
Nice
Yes it is. If you can't pick it apart for yourself it's something like
>this is a simplistic view of the world ignoring a great many (counteractive, i.e. good) factors
I don't know what you mean.
okay, but what about marx critique of capitalism? it doesn't follow that by agreeing with his critique you also MUST accept communism... You can state there are issues with capitalism without believing there to be a better system to replace it.
Bump
People need to stop confusing Capital and the Manifesto. Capital is one of the more important economic texts that any serious economics course would prescribe you regardless of political affiliation. The idea that its some ideological treatise is a sign of ignorance.
>John Maynard Keynes referred to Das Kapital as "an obsolete textbook which I know to be not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application for the modern world"
lmao what """""Serious economics course(s)"""""" are you even referring to my man
>Marx totally neglected the possibility of durable technological progress and steadily increasing productivity
Except he didn't and this was central to his thought, it's literally why:
>the rate of return on capital would steadily diminish
And it has indeed, this is empirically proven if you have an accurate notion of what capital/profit is (Piketty does not). Technical progress/productivity, in other words the organic composition of capital, can rise indefinitely theoretically. But in practice it can't because the effect it causes is falling profitability, which strangles capitalism's capacity to progress. In contrast, this:
>capital’s share of national income would increase indefinitely
is impossible even theoretically because there is a natural/biological limit to how much a worker can be exploited. Therefore there's an inherent limit to how much greater inequality/exploitation can restore profitability.
If Keynes hates it then it ought to be good and not astrology-with-calculus like most economic courses nowadays.
is one of the few points in this thread that actually relate to Das Kapital and not to the Manifesto, and I agree with it. But to be fair, rent is not the strong point of any thinker even after Marx. And even today it has been completely turned around to make people believe it is going to trickle down and promote wealth increase to the lesser favored someday. Muh shareholder value I guess.
Yeah, because he was too much of a faggot to create a chilelean red army.
>If Keynes hates it then it ought to be good and not astrology-with-calculus like most economic courses nowadays.
What are you even trying to say here, you dense fuck? All I'm hearing is ad hominem. Are you implying that an objective mathematical basis to economics is bad? Stop posting.
Iread an article in Black Belt magazine about a guy who'd grown up a street thug that used to bait cops into chases, eventually he got into hap ki do and eventually became this macho operator type employed by the cia to take out soft targets in chile like churches, power stations and schools.
As a teenager in the 80s i was amazed that this story was reported as if it was a good thing that the US govt employed mercenaries to destabilise democratically elected governments in the region. He was no Michael Echanis, but still.
>sanctions, embargo, fuck it shoot em
>US foreign policy
lol fuck your graph
>there is a natural/biological limit to how much a worker can be exploited
And this is an extreme example, he could have considered what the cotton gin did for productivity. And if he had watched ST:TNG he could have considered Dyson Spheres.
And you need capital to begin to replace the worker.
>But in practice it can't because the effect it causes is falling profitability
If you have yearly salary + benefits vs a kiosk for a service worker, profitability suffers on the side of the worker.
First of all, your anecdote about covert operators in chile is a bad argument.
Secondly, the arguments of , ie "fuckin pigdogs keep fucking up the revolution" should be irrelevant if the revolution is imminent and unavoidable. Instead a few CIA plants in a truckers union brings down the whole deck of cards. If that isnt systemic weakness I dont know what is.
And of course it wasnt just CIA, it was resistance of the whole entrenched elite, and if Allende's revolution would have proved successful, another elite with profit motive would have arisen in their place.
The edition I have has a typo
Checkmate
would anyone be interested in a Capital reading group on Veeky Forums? with supplemental videos in-between readings?
>he was actively sabotaging the US's investments
good, fuck them
>you need capital to begin to replace the worker.
This could be the critical dilemma of the 21st century.