(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
Lyon posted:wouldn't the "natural price" be based on the cost of the inputs (capital and labor) + the necessary (expected) profit for someone to produce the commodity? obviously there needs to be a matching societal demand that the manufacturer is predicting which will enable them to sell their commodity. after some googling perhaps most of my schooling was generally under the guise of marginalism which is going to color most of my understanding. yeah but then you've just moved the problem back a step: what determines the price of that capital and that labor? broadly i would say that marx isn't simply throwing out or contradicting a lot of classical political economy, but rather taking it to its logical conclusions, ones which liberal economists themselves are uncomfortable with and so try not to think about. so a lot of economic ideas like supply and demand haven't secretly been invalid all along or something, they've just failed on their own to reveal where profit actually comes from and therefore why the capitalist economy has the tendencies it does
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 07:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
Ferrinus posted:yeah but then you've just moved the problem back a step: what determines the price of that capital and that labor? 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 07:37
|
|
|
post about marxism or gently caress off fyad guy
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 08:43
|
|
|
rfjason
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 08:45
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:yeah but then you've just moved the problem back a step: what determines the price of that capital and that labor? that makes sense, I’m going to read wage labor and capital and then jump into capital, I honestly don’t know enough to contribute meaningfully right now but I find the thread interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 09:48
|
|
|
well the post is about ferrinus the reverse. the reverse of understanding marx, is saying he drove forward on the classical road in a tiny car, with a tiny horn, while giggling
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 09:49
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:post about marxism or gently caress off fyad guy something something dialectic something
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 13:53
|
|
|
For reading Capital, I recommend the Harvey because it explicitly addresses some of the stuff being talked about. Lyon posted:how is this different from supply and demand? it is supply and demand. Marx is just less interested in that side of things. For the sake of argument he's saying "Yeah okay that stuff fluctuates, but I think that's actually a distraction; for now let's pretend they're in equilibrium so that we can figure out what's going on." Here's David Harvey: quote:But in order to be of value, the commodity has to be useful. On this link back between value and use-value, we will see all kinds of issues arising around supply and demand. If the supply is too great, the exchange-value will go down; if the supply is too little, the exchange-value will go up—so there is an element here of supply and demand involved in the “accidental and relative” aspects of exchange-value. But behind these fluctuations, the value can remain constant (provided all the other forces that determine value, such as productivity, do too). Marx is not terribly interested in the supply and demand relation. He wants to know how to interpret commodity-exchange ratios between, say, shirts and shoes, when supply and demand are in equilibrium. We then need a different kind of analysis which points to value as congealed elements of this social substance called socially necessary labor-time. We have, without noticing it, tacitly abstracted from supply and demand conditions in the market in order to talk about commodity-values (with supply and demand in equilibrium) as socially necessary labor-time. DirtyRobot has issued a correction as of 14:26 on May 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 14:24
|
|
|
didnt realize we were doing Talk Like a Pirate Day again
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
tell me more about mARRRRxism matey
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 15:05
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:foreswears a mud pie unbeknownst to you why do u talk like this
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:An argument for socialism from marginal theory of value and negative externalities this reminds me how every now and then some economics grad who is too clever for their own good (especially if they have some knack with math) stumbles into solving some postulate of mainstream economics one mathy guy back at my uni figured out in a "huh" moment that the pareto optimum (the closest to ideal degree of something) for the distribution of goods and services to a society is impossible through free markets, as monopolization sets price fixing to preserve profitability then he went to figure out how to fix that (through a math model) and realized that market deviancies and failures are features not bugs because any and all solutions had to out the "free" from market the department did not accept his paperwork and refused to renew his scholarship lmao
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 16:45
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:this reminds me how every now and then some economics grad who is too clever for their own good (especially if they have some knack with math) stumbles into solving some postulate of mainstream economics 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:this reminds me how every now and then some economics grad who is too clever for their own good (especially if they have some knack with math) stumbles into solving some postulate of mainstream economics lmao owned
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 16:59
|
|
|
Lmfao
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 17:04
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:this reminds me how every now and then some economics grad who is too clever for their own good (especially if they have some knack with math) stumbles into solving some postulate of mainstream economics i believe this is to called recursive self-ownage. we've yet to discover the singuraity, but we may have the ring
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:why do u talk like this i don't. you have doctored that quote
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:this reminds me how every now and then some economics grad who is too clever for their own good (especially if they have some knack with math) stumbles into solving some postulate of mainstream economics for every Richard Wolff there's like a thousand of these lmao
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
DirtyRobot posted:For reading Capital, I recommend the Harvey because it explicitly addresses some of the stuff being talked about. Surplus value comes from the fact that the capitalist is paying for the value of labor power (an amount equal to the goods/services needed to maintain a worker at a socially acceptable level) rather than paying them a value equal to the labor they provide. I think Harvey tends to make things more confusing than just reading Capital yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:post about marxism or gently caress off fyad guy [Spanish] ERRE
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 19:09
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
one of the things that helped me going into capital was something i mentioned already but that i want to underline here: the first thing it does is explain where profit comes from. because if you take liberal economists at their word, profit is actually a total mystery. if, in the free market, everyone is trading goods at their value, how the gently caress can any come out with more money than they started with? if some shoes are worth $10, why aren't you paying the worker who made you the shoes $10 (or, idk, $4 for shoe-making labor, but you're already in the hole for $6 worth of raw materials), and then turning around and selling those shoes for $10, making $0 net? it can't just be a matter of being good at haggling or directly ripping either your seller or your buyer off, because everyone can't be successfully doing that at all times
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
the liberal answer is that the work and genius involved in organizing production and bringing it to market is paid for and evaluated fairly by the market in the profit and is separate from the fairly priced labor involved
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 19:35
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:the liberal answer is that the work and genius involved in organizing production and bringing it to market is paid for and evaluated fairly by the market in the profit and is separate from the fairly priced labor involved marx does a great bit on this theme in chapter 7 Our capitalist stares in astonishment. The value of the product is exactly equal to the value of the capital advanced. The value so advanced has not expanded, no surplus-value has been created, and consequently money has not been converted into capital. The price of the yarn is fifteen shillings, and fifteen shillings were spent in the open market upon the constituent elements of the product, or, what amounts to the same thing, upon the factors of the labour-process; ten shillings were paid for the cotton, two shillings for the substance of the spindle worn away, and three shillings for the labour-power. The swollen value of the yarn is of no avail, for it is merely the sum of the values formerly existing in the cotton, the spindle, and the labour-power: out of such a simple addition of existing values, no surplus-value can possibly arise. These separate values are now all concentrated in one thing; but so they were also in the sum of fifteen shillings, before it was split up into three parts, by the purchase of the commodities. There is in reality nothing very strange in this result. The value of one pound of yarn being eighteenpence, if our capitalist buys 10 lbs. of yarn in the market, he must pay fifteen shillings for them. It is clear that, whether a man buys his house ready built, or gets it built for him, in neither case will the mode of acquisition increase the amount of money laid out on the house. Our capitalist, who is at home in his vulgar economy, exclaims: “Oh! but I advanced my money for the express purpose of making more money.” The way to Hell is paved with good intentions, and he might just as easily have intended to make money, without producing at all. [14] He threatens all sorts of things. He won’t be caught napping again. In future he will buy the commodities in the market, instead of manufacturing them himself. But if all his brother capitalists were to do the same, where would he find his commodities in the market? And his money he cannot eat. He tries persuasion. “Consider my abstinence; I might have played ducks and drakes with the 15 shillings; but instead of that I consumed it productively, and made yarn with it.” Very well, and by way of reward he is now in possession of good yarn instead of a bad conscience; and as for playing the part of a miser, it would never do for him to relapse into such bad ways as that; we have seen before to what results such asceticism leads. Besides, where nothing is, the king has lost his rights; whatever may be the merit of his abstinence, there is nothing wherewith specially to remunerate it, because the value of the product is merely the sum of the values of the commodities that were thrown into the process of production. Let him therefore console himself with the reflection that virtue is its own reward. But no, he becomes importunate. He says: “The yarn is of no use to me: I produced it for sale.” In that case let him sell it, or, still better, let him for the future produce only things for satisfying his personal wants, a remedy that his physician MacCulloch has already prescribed as infallible against an epidemic of over-production. He now gets obstinate. “Can the labourer,” he asks, “merely with his arms and legs, produce commodities out of nothing? Did I not supply him with the materials, by means of which, and in which alone, his labour could be embodied? And as the greater part of society consists of such ne’er-do-wells, have I not rendered society incalculable service by my instruments of production, my cotton and my spindle, and not only society, but the labourer also, whom in addition I have provided with the necessaries of life? And am I to be allowed nothing in return for all this service?” Well, but has not the labourer rendered him the equivalent service of changing his cotton and spindle into yarn? Moreover, there is here no question of service. [15] A service is nothing more than the useful effect of a use-value, be it of a commodity, or be it of labour. [16] But here we are dealing with exchange-value. The capitalist paid to the labourer a value of 3 shillings, and the labourer gave him back an exact equivalent in the value of 3 shillings, added by him to the cotton: he gave him value for value. Our friend, up to this time so purse-proud, suddenly assumes the modest demeanour of his own workman, and exclaims: “Have I myself not worked? Have I not performed the labour of superintendence and of overlooking the spinner? And does not this labour, too, create value?” His overlooker and his manager try to hide their smiles. Meanwhile, after a hearty laugh, he re-assumes his usual mien. Though he chanted to us the whole creed of the economists, in reality, he says, he would not give a brass farthing for it. He leaves this and all such like subterfuges and juggling tricks to the professors of Political Economy, who are paid for it. He himself is a practical man; and though he does not always consider what he says outside his business, yet in his business he knows what he is about.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
Moon Shrimp posted:Surplus value comes from the fact that the capitalist is paying for the value of labor power (an amount equal to the goods/services needed to maintain a worker at a socially acceptable level) rather than paying them a value equal to the labor they provide. I think Harvey tends to make things more confusing than just reading Capital yourself. for example: comedyblissoption posted:the liberal answer is that the work and genius involved in organizing production and bringing it to market is paid for and evaluated fairly by the market in the profit and is separate from the fairly priced labor involved
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 19:56
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:marx does a great bit on this theme in chapter 7 I get how one could find enjoyment in reading this, but to me, it sucks. someone rewrite it in the style of Bill Burr
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
indigi posted:I get how one could find enjoyment in reading this, but to me, it sucks. someone rewrite it in the style of Bill Burr i guess that last paragraph could have used more line breaks or even straight up reformatting into a numbered list, but it's a pretty smooth read when you understand what's going on (a hypothetical capitalist is throwing out a series of bullshit excuses for why he should be allowed to collect $15 after spending only $12)
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NotPotBol/status/1396900256789319680
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 20:06
|
|
|
stalin is now cancelled
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
kill six billion ukrainians
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:kill six billion ukrainians
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
DirtyRobot posted:I think the stuff I posted is important for understanding commodity fetishism and why capitalists think they’re producing value rather than stealing it I don't want to pick on you, but the capitalist doesn't merely steal surplus value, they must also compete with other capitalists for a share of the market. This puts pressure on them to squeeze as much work as possible out of their employees and to develop more efficient technology and methods so they can lower their prices under their competitors. I'm not saying this just to be pedantic; it's important to realize that even if the workers owned the business themselves they would have to contend with these same pressures and hence exploit themselves (something that Richard Wolff doesn't talk about very often for some mysterious reason).
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
i'm actually not sure that "exploit themselves" (or "exploit yourself") makes sense as a marxist formulation, because at the end of the day you can't turn 4 hours of commodities into 5 hours of money no matter how hard you work. they certainly have to subject themselves to the same discipline and privation they'd face if they were regular old employees, but exploitation is specifically appropriating surplus so that you can pay M and get M`, right?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:i'm actually not sure that "exploit themselves" (or "exploit yourself") makes sense as a marxist formulation, because at the end of the day you can't turn 4 hours of commodities into 5 hours of money no matter how hard you work. they certainly have to subject themselves to the same discipline and privation they'd face if they were regular old employees, but exploitation is specifically appropriating surplus so that you can pay M and get M`, right? I'm not always great at getting all the jargon right, but they would being paid less than they are producing with the surplus being reinvested into efforts to keep the company competitive.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 20:54
|
|
|
i might be getting it wrong, i don't know. but yeah you've hit the nail on the head there - because the entire firm would be a slave to the market it would have to make the same cutthroat decisions w/r/t its own workers and infrastructure as a normal CEO would
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
Marx correctly deconstructs the idea of the worker ever getting 'the full fruit of their labour' in the Critique of the Gotha Programme though. Replenishment of capital used in production has to come from the value they produce unless they're running the business down and there are social deductions to make like maintaining public goods or supporting non-value producing people (kids, elderly, sick, full time students, etc) so I don't see the argument of 'market conditions creating the need for competitive levels of investment' being different from that. It's just an argument for why syndicalism and co-op market socialism or whatever is inherently flawed rather than capitalist exploitation frameworks.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 07:37 |
|
|
under free-market conditions there would be no capitalist profits either, it's a systematic inefficiency which a lot of contemporary economists just sort of write off as statistical noise or consider inexplicable/a product of genius/whatever but yes, a market socialist economy would face the precise same pressures in terms of forced reinvestment etc. intra-firm exploitation would be replaced by inter-firm competition and squeezing and you'd almost certainly see the rapid emergence of a sort of psuedo-bourgeois class of strategically placed firms leveraging their size and power to basically extract a surplus from smaller/weaker ones this society would still be more efficient in the sense that less money would be extracted from the productive economy, but you'd have a lot of the same structures in place as under capitalism. this is why i am not a market socialist.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 21:25
|
|
