4 ms·

I strongly recommend you to actually read some Marx, it might get you out of the Web3 sham, but here's a good economic analysis of cryptocurrencies if you haven

I strongly recommend you to actually read some Marx, it might get you out of the Web3 sham, but here's a good economic analysis of cryptocurrencies if you haven't seen it yet (judging from your username you need to see it) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g .

ETH_start 4y ago
I've read enough Marx to know he had a layman's understanding of Economics. Read his own words: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch09.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour... >>But even if we assume that all who are directly forced out of employment by machinery, as well as all of the rising generation who were waiting for a chance of employment in the same branch of industry, do actually find some new employment – are we to believe that this new employment will pay as high wages as did the one they have lost? If it did, it would be in contradiction to the laws of political economy. We have seen how modern industry always tends to the substitution of the simpler and more subordinate employments for the higher and more complex ones. How, then, could a mass of workers thrown out of one branch of industry by machinery find refuge in another branch, unless they were to be paid more poorly? and >>To sum up: the more productive capital grows, the more it extends the division of labour and the application of machinery; the more the division of labour and the application of machinery extend, the more does competition extend among the workers, the more do their wages shrink together. This was proven wrong in his own lifetime as factory worker wages rapidly grew in industrializing Britain. This Luddite fallacy: that automation causes wages to decline, is something that laymen, who haven't studied Economics, believe. In reality, automation is the primary source of wage growth, and the reason wages today in the US are 20 times greater, after adjusting for inflation, than they were 200 years ago, in 1822. And like I said, he didn't understand the basic fact that capital contributes value to the economy, and thus that profits accrued to business owners are not "economic rent", and that furthermore, capital does not emerge unless those who create it - by saving and investing - are compensated via ownership-rights and profits. I suggest you study real Economics, and then analyze Marx' claims in light of what it teaches you.
- cauefcr 4y ago
  Only in capitalism can automation of work be a problem for the workers, as their work is not tied to their/the company's productivity, but to the market rate of wages, which is detached from productivity.

ETH_start 4y ago

I've read enough Marx to know he had a layman's understanding of Economics. Read his own words: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch09.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour... >>But even if we assume that all who are directly forced out of employment by machinery, as well as all of the rising generation who were waiting for a chance of employment in the same branch of industry, do actually find some new employment – are we to believe that this new employment will pay as high wages as did the one they have lost? If it did, it would be in contradiction to the laws of political economy. We have seen how modern industry always tends to the substitution of the simpler and more subordinate employments for the higher and more complex ones. How, then, could a mass of workers thrown out of one branch of industry by machinery find refuge in another branch, unless they were to be paid more poorly? and >>To sum up: the more productive capital grows, the more it extends the division of labour and the application of machinery; the more the division of labour and the application of machinery extend, the more does competition extend among the workers, the more do their wages shrink together. This was proven wrong in his own lifetime as factory worker wages rapidly grew in industrializing Britain. This Luddite fallacy: that automation causes wages to decline, is something that laymen, who haven't studied Economics, believe. In reality, automation is the primary source of wage growth, and the reason wages today in the US are 20 times greater, after adjusting for inflation, than they were 200 years ago, in 1822. And like I said, he didn't understand the basic fact that capital contributes value to the economy, and thus that profits accrued to business owners are not "economic rent", and that furthermore, capital does not emerge unless those who create it - by saving and investing - are compensated via ownership-rights and profits. I suggest you study real Economics, and then analyze Marx' claims in light of what it teaches you.

cauefcr 4y ago
Only in capitalism can automation of work be a problem for the workers, as their work is not tied to their/the company's productivity, but to the market rate of wages, which is detached from productivity.