Was he right, Veeky Forums?

Dumb gommie

The invisible hand is a metaphor that is not essential to Smith's economic theory. It's comparable to talking about natural selection in teleological or intentional terms.

The LTV is more nuanced than it is usually presented as. It's not that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labor that it took to produce it -- it's determined (at a time) by the 'socially necessary labor-time' required to produce it (at that time). That said, most contemporary Marxists of an analytical bent end up rejecting the LTV anyway, due to its general failure to track exchange value according to the actual economical data.

The very idea of rejecting ideologies based on idealism comes from Marx.

no.

His analysis of capitalism I find is largely correct, but I think his solution misses the mark and is difficult if not impossible to implement in practice

How specifically?

clearly not

Yes.

Why, specifically?

>Marx: "violence and religiousness are the results of the alienation brought by class polarization, in primitive communism and when we abolish the private property of the means of production, we will end them both

>Modern archeology: "violence and religiousness predate the development of agriculture and class polarization, there is no reason to believe they would go away even if True Communism™ with worker's councils etc was achieved

Smith is the one who developed the LTV. The difference is that Smith believed value comes from labor and surplus value should be invested in labor,technology, and land while Marx saw anything not returned to labor was exploitation. When Smith wrote that land was commonly owned.

He was left, very left.

muffled heh in the distance covered by the sound of tinnitus

Also,
>Gave away his dowry of a box of silver coins to anybody who asked which was completely gone in a week
>Blew money on cigars and booze as his kids literally starved to death

>i'm a Peterson drone

No, he was left

>The very idea of rejecting ideologies based on idealism comes from Marx.

Only to propose and insist on a strict implementation of his own fictional dictates following destabilization because that would supposedly work.

People are dicks, not virtues, altruistic, idealists and capitalism works for this very reason.

lel the pareto distribution is eighth grade economics

>subversive jew with ideology of economic mismanagement
>right

>People are dicks, not virtues, altruistic, idealists and capitalism works for this very reason.

Wut?

Just ignore Granpa, he'll tire himself out

Simply saying "pareto distribution" doesn't refrute Marxism.

(Or post-modern neo-Marxism as you're more likely to call it.)

The oldest jokes are always the oldest.

Socialism assumes too much of the human nature incorrectly for it work.

>people actually give a flying fuck about virtuous behavior.
>people are just selfish greedy fucks looking out for their own because they are ""unenlightened" not because that's how they are most true to their core.
>implying socialism can work without a massive brainwashing indoctrinating social cohesion narrative to bind people together.

Yeah but you see the idea is that Socialism doesn't have to rely on humans being good. Its a system designed to force cooperation and if you're not cooperative you go to the gulag.
But on the otherhand Capitalism isn't doing too well coping with greedy kikes either

>human nature
meme

>The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others
Wilde

Socialism puts surplus value in the hands of the people who toiled for it. If anything, socialism allows people to be more self-interested.

>neuroplasticity means people can be molded into anything from gratefully biddable sheppards dogs to amoeba's if we wanted to!
>anyone who doesn't gleefully obeys his role of servitude and swallows our phantasmal narrative is mentally ill
>it would work if everyone just believed and stopped being primitive minded!

Dude there's no such thing as surplus value

the second Veeky Forums gets a youtube board is the same second that Veeky Forums is saved

>human nature

Also, this meme has to die. It's just a talking point with no intellectual meat behind it (or at least that's how it's used here). Humans have a nature, sure, but how exactly does that refute every attempt to improve the lot of the majority?

It's one of those parroted things like "Diana was the People's princess" and "the Poles are good workers" that everyone says but never stops to think about.

Everyone who says "human nature" without explantion and without context is merely saying, "I'm a fucking drone," and you'll get no respect from me.

...

Ugh I can just picture the self-conceited ratty grin of the Limey behind this
Funny how they turn to Socialism as soon as they accept their rotten empire is gone

That the best you got?

>a foundation is just a talking point with no actual building, buildings have a foundation sure, but how exactly does that refute every attempt to build something without one?

>anyone who says we need a common foundation to build our house upon is an entropy enableist shitlord who is merely saying ' laws of physics n shit', you'll get no respect from me.

you get hungry?

congrats, i just found human nature and motivated cognition

No that one was on the house
I just can't stand you Brits, you can't just accept your little miserable island world is unimportant. Even your choice of metaphors here is so fucking self aggrandizing. Who the fuck cares about Diana? You don't reference shit like that to strengthen your points you do it just to fellate yourself

What is he hiding in his jacket?

>every attempt to implement his retarded system failed
>Was he right, Veeky Forums?
No. No, he wasn't.

Me:
>humans have a nature, sure

Learn. To. Read.

(Another hangover case?)

Merely saying "dat goes against human nature" is a talking point, and a stupid and overwrought one at that. Where's the argument?

To demonstrate: I could say digging for potatoes is against human nature... would you respect that for an argument?

>thinks mentioning Diana is intellectual masturbation

kek

>>thinks mentioning Diana is intellectual masturbation

You're literally making interior reference points with zero regard to the fact you're on an international platform. I guarantee tons of people here don't have a single clue who Diana is but you do it anyway because you can't take the humility of acknowledging the existence of other worlds.
Do you really not see how obnoxious that is?

>no meat
>post you are responding to literally writes three examples in green text
>spergs out over the general and doesn't address the specifics

thanks for stopping by reddit

People are power hungry and act out of self-interest, and socialist/communist doctrines seem to refuse to acknowledge that, choosing instead to believe in some Rousseaunian notion that people have good (read: egalitarian, humanitarian, liberal, progressive) intentions but end up corrupted by "the system". I think humans are primed to live in a scarce environment and only share their possessions to the extent that it is immediately beneficial to themselves

So I supposed to find a universal metaphor that would be to familiar to people across the world... Er, well, it's like... um, you know when your neighbour say's "boy/girl/comrade/mate, it sure looks like it'll be raining cats and dogs today." Does that work for you?

Those three examples were literally the same point - "human beings are selfish". Not. Good. Enough.

Also, nice meme, very clever and witty.

>People are power hungry and act out of self-interest

I just told you how socialism will grant people greater personal power. The rest is drivel and shows how you haven't read a page of Marx. Rousseau? Really? Get real.

(Note: apologies if this post isn't cultural relativist enough for )

Yes it does, it shows it's not a capitalism thing, it's a universal in every domain where creativity is a factor

Expatiate.

(Surely Peterson gave you more than that?)

What do you mean by 'people'? Some people aren't power hungry or act out of self-interest. That is human nature too. The criticism of capitalism comes in when it is described as a system that allows or enables the selfish and power hungry to run that system, by exploiting others. Communism isn't 'against human nature' any more than capitalism is against the co-operative human nature.

Peterson didn't invent the Pareto distribution you moron.
Read up on it, test it out yourself.

Knowing I share a board with communists is truly a disgusting feeling.
Economic brainlets

No kidding, you mean to say that history has been defined by power and capital accumulating in the hands of a small elite? Does that mean the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles? Wow, Marx btfo!

>Peterson didn't invent the Pareto distribution you moron

No, but the only reason you know about it is because of Peterson. I'm pretty sure of that.

Now, I asked you to expand on a theory you seem very attached to. What's so difficult about that?

>knowing I share a board with communists is truly a disgusting feeling.

Actually pol seems fairly commie-free.

>I just told you how socialism will grant people greater personal power.
Yeah, those two sentences that say nothing congruent with actual socialism sure showed me

>The rest is drivel and shows how you haven't read a page of Marx. Rousseau? Really? Get real.
wew

>Some people aren't power hungry or act out of self-interest
I've never met a single person like that. The best (worst) case scenario is someone fooled into ascribing nobility to weakness via slave morality.

>The best (worst) case scenario is someone fooled into ascribing nobility to weakness via slave morality.

Which doesn't disqualify them from actually existing. Not sure what your point is. Is slave morality against human nature?

>What's so difficult about that?
Read the wiki, why should I tell you how it works?
Do the work yourself you lazy communist.

You don't actually know what socialism is, do you? Surplus value?

>Some people aren't power hungry or act out of self-interest
>I've never met a single person like that

Oh, how sad.

In other words, you don't know anything more than the few seconds Peterson spent on it.

>Hasn't done the work

I guess your job in this thread is done then and you can leave

Slave morality is pathological, not essential. It's something you're taught to believe, not something inherent to you

Well reading I guess is against human nature.

I did, why do you need me to explain it to you?
What do you gain?
You could have read it for yourself.

>I've never met a single person like that. The best (worst) case scenario is someone fooled into ascribing nobility to weakness via slave morality.

I think the issue here is your

IDEOLOGY
D
E
O
L
O
G
Y

Your job here is done and you can leave. You posted the wiki article which we can all read in our spare time.

Yeah, you can leave now. You've reminded us all that Jordan Peterson is still a thing.

get your head out of the trash can bucko

Good, sad you never hard of it before, a commie rat should know
You're obsessed with a professor, sad.

Nice, we already got to that point in every capitalism x socialism discussion where the socialist claims you simply don't know what you're talking about. Bye

great posts

socialists can't argue, just ask smug and think they have a point.

Considering Marx already accounted for it? History of class struggle, remember? I reminded you if it here which you ignored:

Well, I'm sorry, a lot of people seem to have missed Marxism 101, yet still feel very strongly that they must comment on it.

>democratic control of the means of production

>socialists can't argue, just ask smug and think they have a point.

Yes, I'm often guilty of asking smug.

>So I supposed to find a universal metaphor that would be to familiar to people across the world...

Yeah its easy, you just talk like an American because that's who's in charge now Trevor

Oh you mean the class struggle that should have increased but didn't?

We got to that point when someone mentioned Pareto distribution and expected others to read up about it like it was relevant.

inb4 M-muh false consciousness

Put those goal posts back. We're talking about Pareto distribution.

>there are "people" who still believe in marxism and a revolution

hahaha the socialists doesn't like this topic
Face it, marx was a shit predictor, a loser anda bum

I like the topic of the Pareto distribution so let's keep talking about it. A simple yes or no question for you: Marx suggested the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a small elite was a repeating historical phenomenon -- yes or no?

>>democratic control of the means of production

This means nothing, there's no objective measurement of "democracy", Stalin would claim his nation was democratic
In the end of the day Democracy is whatever the state decides is democratic

lmao I'm not playing your game of moving goalposts.
Marx was a loser, didn't work and predicted capitalism wrong, someone that should have been forgotten in history, a loser.

Democratic liberal capitalism is literally the end of history. Deal with it bucko

You were fine with moving goalposts before. Doesn't matter, you're done anyway.

>the revolution is happening soon bro, believe me

So let's deconstruct everything.

Human nature means nothing, there's no objective measure of "human nature", Kropotkin would claim anarchism was human naturery
In the end of the day Human Nature is whatever user decides is human nature

Fair?

>Implying it's not crumbling into fascism

hahahaha go follow your loser.
His theories are dumb and don't work in practise, his prediction of capitalism is bad and he was a lazy NEET in his life.
What. A. Loser

>class consciousness will prevail comrade

That's not how you spell Chinese-Jewish feudal technocracy

>Human nature means nothing, there's no objective measure of "human nature"

Yeah but there are actual humans to measure, just like there were actual Socialist countries to measure

>boss gives me the tools
>i give him the labor and get paid for it
>get keeps and sells the end product/service because he invested more

What exactly is wrong with this?

According to communist morons he's ''exploiting'' you.
Normal people call it giving someone a job but they never work so it sounds like exploition.

Dumb losers hate the idea of others being smarter and more daring than them

You're working 15 hour days

Guess you should have been born white then lmao