3 ms·

since you haven't got to capital vol 3 (or read any text that covers that material) you do not have the knowledge required to engage in a conversation about mar

since you haven't got to capital vol 3 (or read any text that covers that material) you do not have the knowledge required to engage in a conversation about marx's derivation of profit from surplus value. you simply do not have a handle on these categories of political economy. there's even a keynesian here demonstrating your illiteracy in orthodox economics. if this stuff interests you i suggest you study rigorously but if it doesn't interest you then that's fine -- you can be a fantastic anti-communist without it e: as far as the increasing wages of english workers towards the end of the 19th century, you would have to look at engels' criticism of the bourgeois labour party (written to marx) and the continuation of that work by lenin (imperialism, etc). i don't think you actually care about any of this. the mere indication of a historical difficulty within the field of political economy is good enough for you to call marx an illiterate quack (not even the grimiest neoclassical economist would go this far). whatever helps you feel good about your brain i guess

CryptoPunk 7y ago
I don't need to read the entire corpus of Marxist literature to conclude that Marxian economics is quackery. A few choice statements from Marx, demonstrating his economic literacy and belief in basic economic fallacies like Ludditism, is quite enough. >>the mere indication of a historical difficulty within the field of political economy is good enough for you to call marx an illiterate quack Claiming automation would reduce wages is a basic fallacy that economic laymen believe in. No one with even a moderate grasp of economics would believe this. He was a quack. >>whatever helps you feel good about your brain i guess You are promoting a man who had an amateur understanding of economics, and whose doctrines wherever they came to be adopted led to tyrannies the likes of which the world had never seen before.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >I don't need to read the entire corpus of Marxist literature to conclude that Marxian economics is quackery. You do have to read about modern Marxist economic replies to objections over a century old. The likes of Guglielmo Carcheidi, Kliman and Freeman, and even non-Marxist economists sympathetic to Marx answer many of these problems. >Claiming automation would reduce wages is a basic fallacy that economic laymen believe in. This is not strictly the claim that Marx makes, and this claim you attribute to him only comes from a particular logical view of Marx rather than his own logic.
  - CryptoPunk 7y ago
    >>and this claim you attribute to him only comes from a particular logical view of Marx rather than his own logic. Huh? I quoted him asserting that mechanization would reduce wages.
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      For Marx everything is a tendency, in his logic, we go beyond the simple positive statement and into actual historical development, consider for instance he correctly anticipated the fight over wages between the working class and the capitalists (which today precipitates in the creation of many workers' rights laws), which serves to counter-act the tendency, and a greater rate of exploitation (rather than a lower wage) is one of them. The biggest clue against your reading of Wage Labour and Capital is that Marx believed that a rise in productivity tends to a rise in wages. Marx only identifies the introduction of machinery lowering the wage rate on the idea that with such machinery, workers are more substitutable - but as far as I know he did not account for the rising proportion of people taking up what he described as a "numerically unimportant class", "engineers, mechanics, joiners". In fact, this class of workers has not seen the same reduction or stagnation in the wage rate that Marx saw would happen with low skill workers. "And precisely taking into account the forms of technical progress which Marx considered - that is the division of labour, capital saving, the mechanization of production and innovations - a fall in the maximum rate of profit can happen only in very particular cases, and no need arises to keep wages at a minimum in order to avoid a fall in the rate of profit."[0] [0] https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/20976/1/MPRA_paper_20976.pdf https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/20976/1/MPRA_paper_20976.pdf
      - CryptoPunk 7y ago
        I was asked by moderators to not engage debates about ideology, so I'm not going to respond to this beyond saying that absolving him of his responsibility for making a prediction that ended up being proven wrong, and for forwarding a claim about the fundamental impact of automation that is a basic economic fallacy, is not intellectually honest.

CryptoPunk 7y ago

I don't need to read the entire corpus of Marxist literature to conclude that Marxian economics is quackery. A few choice statements from Marx, demonstrating his economic literacy and belief in basic economic fallacies like Ludditism, is quite enough. >>the mere indication of a historical difficulty within the field of political economy is good enough for you to call marx an illiterate quack Claiming automation would reduce wages is a basic fallacy that economic laymen believe in. No one with even a moderate grasp of economics would believe this. He was a quack. >>whatever helps you feel good about your brain i guess You are promoting a man who had an amateur understanding of economics, and whose doctrines wherever they came to be adopted led to tyrannies the likes of which the world had never seen before.

claudiawerner 7y ago
>I don't need to read the entire corpus of Marxist literature to conclude that Marxian economics is quackery. You do have to read about modern Marxist economic replies to objections over a century old. The likes of Guglielmo Carcheidi, Kliman and Freeman, and even non-Marxist economists sympathetic to Marx answer many of these problems. >Claiming automation would reduce wages is a basic fallacy that economic laymen believe in. This is not strictly the claim that Marx makes, and this claim you attribute to him only comes from a particular logical view of Marx rather than his own logic.
- CryptoPunk 7y ago
  >>and this claim you attribute to him only comes from a particular logical view of Marx rather than his own logic. Huh? I quoted him asserting that mechanization would reduce wages.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    For Marx everything is a tendency, in his logic, we go beyond the simple positive statement and into actual historical development, consider for instance he correctly anticipated the fight over wages between the working class and the capitalists (which today precipitates in the creation of many workers' rights laws), which serves to counter-act the tendency, and a greater rate of exploitation (rather than a lower wage) is one of them. The biggest clue against your reading of Wage Labour and Capital is that Marx believed that a rise in productivity tends to a rise in wages. Marx only identifies the introduction of machinery lowering the wage rate on the idea that with such machinery, workers are more substitutable - but as far as I know he did not account for the rising proportion of people taking up what he described as a "numerically unimportant class", "engineers, mechanics, joiners". In fact, this class of workers has not seen the same reduction or stagnation in the wage rate that Marx saw would happen with low skill workers. "And precisely taking into account the forms of technical progress which Marx considered - that is the division of labour, capital saving, the mechanization of production and innovations - a fall in the maximum rate of profit can happen only in very particular cases, and no need arises to keep wages at a minimum in order to avoid a fall in the rate of profit."[0] [0] https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/20976/1/MPRA_paper_20976.pdf https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/20976/1/MPRA_paper_20976.pdf
    - CryptoPunk 7y ago
      I was asked by moderators to not engage debates about ideology, so I'm not going to respond to this beyond saying that absolving him of his responsibility for making a prediction that ended up being proven wrong, and for forwarding a claim about the fundamental impact of automation that is a basic economic fallacy, is not intellectually honest.